Public Notice _ Pinellas County, St. Petersburg, Clearwater.pdf - Geoffrey Jacob Caputo

Please enable JavaScript to view the full PDF

OUTLINE & INTRODUCTION This process involved Pinellas County , St. Petersburg, and Clearwater Offices, as well as a notice to State offices regarding a document request for epidemiological investigation data which demonstrated the proportion that bars, restaurants, and entertainment venues represented for COVID upturns. The result is that some offices admitted outright to not possessing such data, or some remained silent and by tacit acquiescence , admitted to not possessing such data by default. The result being that they are enforcing COVID restrictions absent credentialed and authorized epidemiological investigation data which can only be provided by the Florida Department Of Health In Pinellas. The overall implication is that with all such county and municipal offices citing these businesses for not implementing COVID restrictions, then it would follow that these authorities would deem the non-compliance as a threat to public health, would notify the Florida Department of Health (FDOH) in Pinellas, who in turn should ostensibly perform an epidemiological investigation on these venues to assess the threat. Further, logic would dictate that there would be COVID patients contact traced to these establishments as a rationale for citing such businesses. The fact that the FDOH did no epidemiological investigations of such non-compliant venues which were cited, and also not notified by the authorities, demonstrates that the FDOH or these county/city offices did not view COVID restriction non-compliance by such venues as a significant threat in the spread of Sars-Cov-2 in the first place. The reasoning behind this document request is because an LA County court granted an injunction against LA County in favor of The California Restaurant Association for allowing outdoor dining in California Restaurant Association, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health, et al., case number 20STCP03881. Although this case dealt with outdoor dining, the concept of LA County having to present data in order to justify their restrictions is a constant regardless of indoor vs. outdoor dining. The logic then follows that, if there is no credentialed and authorized epidemiological data showing the proportion that these venues represent for COVID upturns, then there is no rationalization for enforcing the restrictions absent competent proof that these establishments are significant drivers of Sars-Cov-2. “The Department’s own data provide no support for the planned shutdown of outdoor restaurant operations. The data tracks all non-residential settings at which three or more laboratory confirmed COVID cases have been identified. Of the 204 locations on the list, fewer than 10% are restaurants. Of the 2,257 cases identified on the list, fewer than 5% originate from restaurants.” “the Department’s data indicates that COVID cases traced back to the County's restaurants and bars accounted for a mere 3.1 % (70 of the total 2,257) confirmed cases countywide from over 204 outbreak locations -- the vast majority of which were chain/fast-food type restaurants and not MEC’s model. Of those 2,257 confirmed cases, 2,249 of were traced to staff members at workplaces and just eight cases came from non-staff members.” OUTLINE & INTRODUCTION “At this meeting, the Department admitted that it has not been tracking COVID transmission at County restaurants and did not have state or County data to support the Restaurant Closure Order. Id. Instead, County Health Officer Davis referred to a study by the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”), calling it “the best information that we have” to support the Restaurant Closure Order. Id.” “The Department’s available data does not contain any epidemiological or other model that shows prohibiting outdoor dining on a countywide basis in a county the size of the County has any relationship to avoiding circumstances that challenge the healthcare delivery system’s ability to deal with a surge with space, supplies, and staff as required by the Blueprint, does not compare hospitalization forecasts against hospital capacity in light of prohibitions on outdoor dining, does not account for the possibility of transfers of patients across counties, and does not account for the possibility of building and staffing field hospitals in overstretched areas.” “Both the number of new daily cases and the percent positivity criteria require analysis of results from the reverse transcriptase - polymerase chain reaction (“RT-PCR”) test for the COVID virus utilized by the County. Id. The available scientific information regarding the accuracy of COVID PCR tests, as conducted by clinical laboratories in California, suggests that they are not sufficiently accurate regarding infectivity risk to warrant the central role they play in the criteria the County has adopted for restricting activity” “Based on the case data for October-November, it is clear that the County’s increased cases are not due to the restaurant sector as restaurants only making up 3.10% of new infections during that period” “ The Department’s available data does not contain any epidemiological or other model that shows prohibiting outdoor dining on a countywide basis has any relationship to avoiding circumstances that challenge the healthcare delivery system’s ability to deal with a surge with space, supplies, and staff" “These assertions are not based on science or data showing restaurants as the cause of the problem” “ the key information for COVID restrictions are hospitalizations and ICU bed utilizations" ERRATA: An error was made on the preceding affidavit on affirmation 7. The word, “city” should read to mean, “Pinellas County and municipalities within”. The following record has certain pages omitted for the sake of brevity in order to reduce the redundancy involved, and the originals of such omitted pages can be provided in the event of any court or administrative action. A more efficient way to read just what is noted as either sufficient or a highlight within each State, County, or municipal heading. the rest of the material under the headings and highlights are brief rundowns of the services. OUTLINE & INTRODUCTION 1st Services pgs 10-73 STATE OF FLORIDA pgs. 10-20 : Reading just The Governor’s and Surgeon General’s Letters are sufficient The letters to the Governor (pgs. 10-12) and Surgeon General (15-17) reflect the full state service, and the Attorney General and Surgeon General Attorney were copied. They were put on notice that Pinellas County, and Cities of St. Petersburg and Clearwater were enforcing COVID restrictions under the auspices that bars, restaurants, and entertainment venues were major drivers of COVID upturns. The distancing mandates put on these venues reduce their capacities in violation of Executive order EO 20-244§3, which requires permission and data to be presented to the Governor, and the governor was urged to stop Pinellas County and the municipalities within from such enforcement absent meeting those requirements. The Governor was urged to Amend EO 20-244§4 to exempt businesses from penalties since §4 only exempts “Individuals” and he and the Surgeon General were requested to not allow case positivity to dictate public policy by mandating statewide that PCR Cycle Thresholds be lowered to a maximum of 33-34 Ct. (read those pages for the reason behind this) PINELLAS COUNTY pgs. 21-45 Reading just the FDOH service (21-31) and PCSO reply at the bottom of pg. 38 is sufficient. The affidavit in support of requests and memoranda of law in support of common law defaults was sent to all Pinellas County offices and municipalities within on the 1st service, but are omitted in this document for brevity. The other county offices services are identical to the PCSO, with only the addressees being different. MUNICIPALITIES : PGS. 46-58: Page 57 is a highlight. St. Petersburg: The Mayor’s Office Full Document appears, the St. Pete Atty’s office document is identical , but only the cover letter is included to reduce redundancy. Clearwater: The Mayor and City Attorney’s services are identical to the St. Pete Mayor’s , but with only the cover letters for brevity, and with their names changed. ON PAGE 57, The Clearwater Mayor’s office abandoned responsibility of the document request and put the responsibility on the Clearwater Police Department, who responded they had no such documents, thus the whole response being on behalf of the City of Clearwater, meaning no such documents exist for the Clearwater. pgs. 59-73 is the USPS certified mail tracking for proof of delivery of the 1st Service OUTLINE & INTRODUCTION 2nd Service: pgs. 74-128 STATE : pgs. 74-83 Reading just the Governor (74-76) & Surgeon General (80-81) service is sufficient. Follow ups were sent and were informed that all of the other offices were at fault before being in actual default. The Attorney General and Surgeon General Services are copied. COUNTY: pgs. 84-97 Pgs. 92-93 highlight the notice of fault for all county offices, and pgs 94-97 are another highlight which reflect the Pinellas County Attorney response. Notices of fault were sent, and contact was ceased with the PCSO. Pgs. 94-97, The Pinellas County Attorney responded that the Pinellas County Emergency Management Agency’s (PCEM) response was sufficientt and on behalf of the PBCC, The County Attorney, and The County Administrator. However, the PCEM’s response was a mere acknowledgement of receiving the request, absent any acknowledgement of the existence or non- existence of the records. Since the county attorney deemed that as an acceptable response, such constituted a default admission that no such records existed. MUNICIPAL, pgs. 98-120 pgs. 102-103 and pgs 112,117 are highlights pgs. 98-101, Notices of fault were sent to the St. Pete Mayor and City Attorney Pgs. 102-105 : Since Clearwater admitted to no such documents existing via the Clearwater PD in the first service on page 57, a demand for all city offices to cease COVID restrictions due to no epidemiological data was sent to the mayor’s office and his attorney. 106-120: St. Petersburg Custodian of Public Records as well as St. Pete/Clearwater Code Enforcement were added with identical requests to that of the respective mayors’ offices in the first services. pg. 117: The St. Petersburg Custodian of Public Records responded that no city offices possess such records which means that the City of St, Petersburg Mayor and Code Enforcement have no such records. pgs. 121-128 is the USPS certified mail tracking for proof of delivery of the 2nd Service OUTLINE & INTRODUCTION 3rd Service, pgs. 129-159 STATE pgs. 129-141 Pgs. 129-133 are highlights. State offices were followed up with and also informed that the County and Municipal offices were in default. pg. 131: The Office of the Governor confirmed that they had no documents from Pinellas County which would warrant them legitimately reducing venue capacities pursuant to EO-244§3 COUNTY pgs. 142-151 pgs. 142-145 reflect the gist of the final county service. Notices of default sent with demand to cease COVID restrictions absent epidemiological data. MUNICIPAL pgs. 152-159 pgs. 156 is a highlight - the St. Petersburg Attorney’s Office finally got back to me saying that my 3rd default was misguided, and legally and factually wrong, and , “The City of St. Petersburg has consistently based its emergency actions upon public health studies”. However, there has been no “epidemiological “studies” to determine the data they admit to not having. St. Petersburg: Mayor, city attorney, and code enforcement. Notices of default sent with demand to cease COVID restrictions absent epidemiological data pursuant to the custodian of records response on p. 117 Clearwater Code Enforcement : Notice of default sent with demand to cease COVID restrictions absent epidemiological data pursuant to the Clearwater PD response on pg. 57. pos 160-167 is the USPS certified mail tracking for proof of delivery of the 3rd Service