COVID Litigation Conference

A glimmer of hope

When I entered the foyer of the conference, I was met by a tall blonde that looked immediately at my flip-flops, with a perhaps unintentional, but obvious (to me) micro expression of disgust. Inside, I knew I was in the right place. I actually laughed internally at her class-separation expression. When I walked into the conference room a sea of suits and professional wear contrasted sharply with the khakis, long sleeve shirt, and yes, flip-flops that I was wearing. I was not here to impress with my pomp or “decorum.” I was here to be authentic.

See, if I, as a layperson, can enter into the holy of holies of attorneys that are here to challenge the system. I couldn’t help but smile, and feel a smidge of hope.

If I, as a human individual can have equal access to even discuss this, I am hopeful. There are so many without my expertise, that need this same access, and I am the head of the spear on this issue.

The number of lawyers that were there with less than 10 attorneys in their firm was vast. Jeff Childers, the keynote speaker asked for a show of hands. Then Jeff said “This is a battle of the small firms.” (Poignant)

It is somewhat rattling, and yet catalyzing for hope, that these lawyers are actually interested in challenging “the system” that they have propped up for centuries.

Here I am, a guy who has been averse to the legal industry for years, in the same room with people who were at least willing to admit that the government and pharma were horribly wrong. That’s a bridge to connection, from where I am from, and this is hopeful. This is the system that the legal industry has created, and backed up forever,  with the use of words, linguistics, and clever crafting of obligations on people who just want to be free. Now they are seeing that there is a fire in the wheelhouse, and I have to say, this seems hopeful.

I’m not gushing about attorneys, it’s just that it’s truly exciting to see attorneys that are willing to take risks to challenge the system. All of the attorneys in this room, I’m estimating 300+ are willing to at least consider it. The panelists have a track record of challenging the system of oppression in one way or another.

The one thing that keeps surfacing is the fear of other attorneys that these trailblazers met when challenging the system. This MUST continue. There must be attorneys that are willing to walk past the fear of rejection, threat of livelihood, and the fear of being ostracized, to further the very honorable cause of freedom.

What stays in the back of my mind is that, to be truly successful, they are going to have to attack core principles, like judicial immunity and state sovereign immunity, There simply is no accountability for the system agents. This is not sustainable, and truly lawyers are timid to even discuss this, especially with a non-lawyer.

Challenging the system, however, is my wheelhouse, and the ADA removes sovereign immunity, under 42 USC §12202, 28 CFR §35.178, and Tennessee v. Lane 541 US 509 (2004).

Will they embrace the social engineering tool at their disposal? That is something I actually have a little hope for as well, although it will take the bravest attorneys to do this. The weak need not apply.

Dana Wefer, who is at this conference, is one of those brave attorneys attempting to use the ADA, at least in employee mandates in federal court cases. It seems that Rachel Rodriguez, who just spoke, is also involved in this.

I’ll post more as the weekend goes on, or when I am back from the conference, but suffice it to say, there is a crack in the shell of business as usual.

Thank you, Warner Mendenhall, for allowing me to be a part of your circle of associated individuals.