commonsaychel

@Abba, You don’t need to be a lawyer to file a foil, you just ask for the records anyone can do it.
@n0m, you want my opinion on this? I think if your going to report on someone be prepared to have your name exposed so the people know all about you. If you cant handle that then don’t report your friends and neighbors

The entire Washington state, the agency asked them to leave the contact information including emails, all of that is allowed under FOIL. some of the complaints were anonymous most were not

n0m, are you asking out of the genuine desire to understand what is being discussed or do you want to give your opinion?

Interesting the Court of Appeal in the 6th circuit came down with a ruling on Friday afternoon allowing unlimited access to houses of worship so long as they maintain social distancing, this is the highest level of review so far.

PS n0m when I was a teen I thought I knew all the answers and as the years past I saw how little I knew, nothing personal its just part of growing up.

@Redleg, n0m is a teen with no real life experience and no grasp of law, I would not take his comments seriously.

n0mesoah, The only part of the law where you need intent is in criminal law and this is a civil rights action

@Milhouse I was always wondering about the genuine Calvin Klein and Gucci handbags for sale for sale for $20 on the streets of Manhattan, I just found out is a freedom of speech thing. LOL

Milhouse
I stand corrected I read the MoL on the filing, and one of the case laws was the Police Case, it was not the primary case law but one of several of the minor ones.
I also think n0m know what legal standing means because standing was never in contention

Funnybone, The day Augudah puts out a letter the Yaakov Horowitz speaks for himself and not the rest of the community is the day is the day that Augudah put out the letter saying that this rabbi speaks for himself.
I found it a bigger embarrassment when a pediatrician from Brooklyn went on a crazy rant.

@charliehall, No, people are suing for governmental overreach, you can jump off an bridge anytime you desire and the bridge are pretty empty due to social distancing,

@n0mesorah,
Sorry I don’t understand what your saying, please explain

In an effort to slow the spread of the coronavirus, every state in the United States has issued guidelines or orders limiting social interaction. But these rules don’t always apply evenly when it comes to in-person worship services and other religious gatherings.
In fact, only 10 states are preventing in-person religious gatherings in any form, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of recent state-level regulations. The list includes California, where a group of churches are suing Gov. Gavin Newsom in federal court over what they claim is a violation of their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

Perhaps with such litigation in mind, most other states have carved out exemptions for religious gatherings in their stay-at-home orders or other directives in an attempt to balance religious freedom concerns with safe social distancing practices. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) continues to recommend that gatherings of more than 10 people be canceled, while in gatherings that do take place, individuals should remain at least 6 feet apart at all times.

In some cases, states have deemed religious worship “essential,” in the same category as food shopping and health care. These states include Florida, South Carolina and Tennessee, among others.
Roughly a third of states (15) are allowing religious gatherings to continue without any limit on their size.
Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have specified in their orders that religious gatherings can take place, but only if they are limited to 10 people or fewer. This includes Rhode Island, where gatherings are limited to no more than five people. Two additional states, Connecticut and Oregon, limit religious gatherings to 50 and 25 people, respectively. Kentucky, meanwhile, is prohibiting “mass gatherings” – including faith-based ones – but does not specify how many people constitute a mass gathering.

CTL: State is being sued in federal court so the state does not need to waive in this case. I assume you have pacer access if you practice in federal courts, the action is Robinson v Murphy if you want to read up on the case.
@godal the plaintiff is seeking a TRO and a preliminary injunction against this, those cases are fast tracked and they get a ruling in a matter of days for the most part.
PS the same lawyer sued the Governor of Illinois [Cassell v Pritzker] for same reasons and the governor removed religious services from banned activities rather then go to court.