Case 2:20-cv-00789-SMV Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 1 of 38
`
`Huguette Nicole Young, Ph.D.
`24968 Lawrence Road
`Junction City, OR 97448
`Phone: 415-948-8076
`E-mail: hn_young@yahoo.com
`Pro se
`
`United States District Court
`District of New Mexico
`Las Cruces Division
`
`cASE No. gDcv 1ffi
`
`HUGUETTE NICOLE YOUNG.
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`HECTOR BALDERAS, IN HIS OFFICIAL )
`CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL )
`OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, )
`Defendant
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Emergency Injunctive Relief
`
`Plaintiff complains as follows:
`
`Introduction
`
`l. This is a constitutional challenge to a YouTube directive (henceforth referred to as
`
`YouTube Directive) issued by the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, on July
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00789-SMV Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 2 of 38
`
`13,2020, stating that, effective July 16,2020, face masks will be mandated in all counties of
`
`New Mexico for anybody going out in public ("Gov. Lujan Grisham on face masks in the state,"
`
`posted July 13, 2020, available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v:Kp2k6FPRWzo). While
`
`most governors who have issued face mask orders thus far have issued an executive order in
`
`writing covering on the subject that can be challenged in court, Governor Kate Brown of Oregon
`
`and Governor Lujan Grisham of New Mexico issuing face mask orders via YouTube directives
`
`may be the first time in history constitutional challenges to state laws must cite a YouTube link
`
`as the basis for authoritv of the law.
`
`2. YouTube Directive violates plaintiff s First Amendment right of free speech under the
`
`United States Constitution by literally blocking plaintiff s ability to speak audibly and clearly
`
`while wearing aface mask, so much so that many like plaintiff who are rightfully offended by
`
`blanket face mask orders (that appear, in the absence of transparency, to be based mostly on
`
`political power grabbing in the face of unjustified hysteria) refer to face mask orders under these
`
`conditions as muzzle orders.
`
`3. The government, including Governor Lujan Grisham, may violate plaintiff s right to
`
`free speech with a law, order, or rule if the government can do two things: l) The government
`
`shows a compelling public interest in issuing the rule that outweighs violating plaintiff s rights,
`
`and2) the law addresses the compelling public interest in the most specific and effective way
`
`possible so as to be least intrusive on plaintifls rights. This is referred to as a strict scrutiny
`
`standard of review, and the court must apply this standard to any law, order, or rule that infringes
`
`upon the most fundamental of all human rights. The First Amendment right to free speech falls
`
`into the category of rights that require the highest level of protection, and therefore a law like
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00789-SMV Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 3 of 38
`
`YouTube Directive, which infringes on plaintiff s right to free speech, must pass strict scrutiny.
`
`4. The federal government has not issued face mask requirements in any jurisdiction,
`
`only state and local governments have done so. However, many health experts and scientists in
`
`the federal government who should know better are purposely skewing scientific data to make it
`
`appear Covid-l9 is a public health disaster and to imply that requiring face masks is the best way
`
`to address this public health disaster, thereby giving the appearance that face mask orders like
`
`YouTube Directive pass both prongs of the strict scrutiny test. This is a fallacy.
`
`5. The most reliable scientific data to date shows all state and local face mask orders,
`
`including YouTube Directive, fail both prongs of the strict scrutiny test because 1) as of June,
`
`2020, there is no state, county, or city in the United States that has shown Covid-29 qualifies as a
`
`public health disaster (or even an imminent public health disaster) within its jurisdiction, at least
`
`not a disaster that is worse than the flu in terms of estimated number of deaths and estimated
`
`number of people infected, and2) face mask requirements like YouTube Directive most likely
`
`lead to a significant increase in spread of the virus through surface contacts while having little to
`
`no effect on spread of the virus through the air (at least no effect that can not just as easily be
`
`achieved by having all infected persons cough into the crooks of their elbows), resulting in a net
`
`increase in spread of the virus. This is in addition to mounting scientific data showing prolonged
`
`face mask use cuts down on oxygen intake for the individual and may cause long term health
`
`problems, a concern that is particularly applicable to employees at places like Walmart and
`
`Costco who are required to wear face masks 40 to 60 hours a week.
`
`Experts have known Covid-19 is not a pandemic since Februar),. 2020
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00789-SMV Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 4 of 38
`
`6. While lay people, politicians, and judges have been left helpless and at the mercy of
`
`health experts claiming "we just don't know enough" during the first lockdown phase of
`
`Covid-19 disease, we are too far along now and have leamed more than enough about the
`
`Covid-19 disease to allow the same set of health experts to hoodwink us into a second round of
`
`unjustified rights violations. Based on preliminary data out of China, as early as February,
`
`2020, public health officials Anthony Fauci and Robert Redfield, heads of the National Institutes
`
`of Allergies and Infectious Diseases QTIIAID) and the Centers for Disease Control and
`
`Prevention (CDC), respectively, and current members of the Presidential Task Force on
`
`Coronavirus, acknowledged that Covid-19 was probably not as deadly of a virus as first thought
`
`and may end up being close to the seasonal flu in number of deaths and number of people
`
`infected (scientists use these two numbers -- number and deaths and number of people infected
`
`to calculate something called the "mortality rate" or "case fatality rate" of a virus, which is the
`
`single most important number in determining whether a virus qualifies as a public health
`
`emergency).
`
`7. On February 28,2020, Fauci and Redheld wrote in an editorial in the New England
`
`Journal of Medicine:
`
`"The case fatality rate (of Covid- l9) may be considerably less than lo/o. This suggests
`that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those
`of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.lYo) or a
`pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to
`SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to l0%o aurtd 36Yo, respectively."
`("Covid-19 - Navigating the Uncharted," N Engl J Med 2020;382:1268-1269
`DOI : I 0. 1 056/TIIEJMe2002387)
`
`8. Neither Fauci nor Redfield have retracted nor modified this prediction about Covid-19
`
`in any official manner since February,2020, and most scientific data since the publication of this
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00789-SMV Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 5 of 38
`
`article have verified that Covid-l9 is akin to the seasonal flu in mortality rate. This
`
`unfortunately has not stopped Fauci from spinning Covid-19 as a public health disaster in the
`
`media. On March 27,2020, Fauci told Comedy Central host TrevorNoah, "The mortality rate of
`
`[COVID-I9] is about 10 times [flu] - it's at least lo/o" (From "Dr. Fauci Answers Trevor's
`
`Questions About Coronavirus I The Daily Social Distancing Show" at
`
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v:8A3j iM2FNR8, time marker I : I 1 ). Fauci purposely
`
`neglects to mention that even if the mortality rate of Covid-19 is "about l0 times the flu" (which
`
`is not what Fauci claims in writing when speaking to other scientists), the mortality rate of
`
`Covid-19 would still be 10 times and 30 times lower than SARS and MERS, respectively (which
`
`had mortality rates of lUoh and30oh, respectively), and it is highly debatable whether Covid-19
`
`would quali$ as a public health emergency even if its mortality rate were "10 times higher" than
`
`the flu.
`
`9. That the general consensus in the scientific community from early data out of China is
`
`that Covid-l9 was not nearly as deadly as originally thought was confirmed by Deborah Birx,
`
`another member of the Presidential Task Force on Coronavirus, who said in response to an
`
`reporter's question on March 31,2020, about why there was no general lockdown ordered to
`
`stop the spread of Covid-19 in the United States:
`
`'oI was overseas when this happened, in Africa, and I think when you looked at the China
`data originally and you said, 'oh, well, there's 20 million people in wuhan and 80
`million people in Hubei and they come up with a number of 50,000 (deaths), you start
`thinking of this more like SARS than you do this kind of global pandemic. I mean I'll just
`be frank. when I looked at it I was like, 'oh, well, this is not, you know, as close as
`those quarters are...' so I think the medical community interpreted the Chinese data as
`this was serious but smaller than anyone expected. And so what was modeled was not a
`lockdown." (From "March 31,2020 | Members of the Coronavirus Task Force Hold a
`Press Briefing" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v:e9v8zzdlP0M, time marker
`3:50:22)
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00789-SMV Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 6 of 38
`
`10. There are four main ways health officials and scientists who should know better mav
`
`mislead the public into believing covid-19 is a public health emergency:
`
`i) Reporting a false or misleading number of deaths caused by Covid-19
`
`ii) Reporting a false or misleading number of people infected by Covid-19
`
`iii) Focusing on number of deaths alone or number of people infected alone without
`pointing out that it is the combination of these two numbers that produces the most
`relevant number in determining whether Covid-19 is a public health emergency, i.e., the
`mortality rate
`
`iv) Blocking death statistics from being publicly available at the county level, increasing
`the likelihood for inaccurate & fraudulent data being reported at the state or national level
`for the most important statistics required to determine a public health emergency.
`
`1 1. In this constitutional challenge plaintiff outlines a standard approach lay people,
`
`politicians, and judges can use to evaluate Covid-19 research data that addresses these four main
`
`areas of confusion, relying on current scientific consensus. For instance, it is scientific
`
`consensus that:
`
`i) The most accurate way to estimate the number of deaths due to a new epidemic like
`Covid-19 is to calculate the number of o'excess deaths" during a particular time frame and
`specifically not rely on notoriously inaccurate death certificates.
`ii) The most accurate way to estimate the number of people infected by a virus like
`Covid-19 is through antibody test results and specifically not through RT-PCR test
`results.
`
`iii) The most accurate way to measure the deadliness of a virus like Covid-I9 is to
`calculate the mortality rate of the virus using the most accurate data available from excess
`deaths and antibody testing.
`
`iv) The most accurate way to obtain excess death data is to have full transparency at the
`county level, including the county health offrcial listing the total number of deathsfrom
`all causes reported from each hospital or city coroner within the county for public
`scrutiny.
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00789-SMV Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 7 of 38
`
`12. As of June, 2020, excess death data at the national level published by the CDC
`
`indicate the number of excess deaths for the U.S. for the year 2020 wlll be around 50,000, or
`
`about one-fourth the 200,000 deaths currently estimated for Covid-I9 for 2020 based on
`
`inaccurate death certificate data. Also as of June, 202},the most accurate antibody test results
`
`indicate that in 2020 about 10% of the population in the U.S., or 35 million people, will have
`
`been infected with Covid-l9. Using these two estimates for number of deaths and number of
`
`infections (keeping in mind that the number of deaths caused by Covid-19 will likely be more
`
`accurate when excess deaths are recorded and made available to the public at the county level
`
`rather than at the national level), the national mortality rate for Covid-l9 is about 0.1%o, or the
`
`equivalent of the seasonal flu.
`
`13. There are over 3,100 counties in the United States. In much the same way the
`
`electoral college was set up by the Framers of the Constitution to help expose and deter election
`
`fraud by preventing fraudulent excess votes in one or two counties from determining the
`
`president by popular vote, demanding that accurate death counts and infection numbers be
`
`reported and made transparent at the county level rather than at the state or national level helps
`
`prevent one or two counties from across the country from inaccurately categorizing Covid-I9 as
`
`a "national pandemic." For example, New York City has a population of 8.4 million or 2.4
`
`percent of the population of the United States, yet New York City claims a whopping 23,000
`
`deaths due to Covid-19, or l5Yo of all Covid-19 deaths in the United States. If it turns out after
`
`evaluating New York City excess death data (and tossing out the highly inaccurate death
`
`certificate data) that the number of deaths from New York City due to Covid-I9 is closer 8,400,
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00789-SMV Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 8 of 38
`
`it will have meant that highly inaccurate or fraudulent data from one city alone determined
`
`whether Covid-19 is considered a public health emergency across the entire country. For this
`
`reason plaintiff asserts all public health emergency declarations must be done on a county by
`
`county level. Governor Lujan Grisham's YouTube Directive blanket order for the entire state of
`
`New Mexico therefore has no justification unless and until state health officials can show data in
`
`every county of New Mexico results in mortality rates significantly above mortality rates for the
`
`seasonal flu. It is highly unlikely, given even relatively inaccurate death numbers and infection
`
`numbers publicly available at the national level at the CDC for New Mexico, that even a single
`
`county in New Mexico can show Covid-19 constitutes a public health emergency.
`
`Four main ways experts and scientists may mislead the public on efficacy of face masks
`
`14. Even if Covid-19 were to qualify as a public health emergency in a few of the 3100
`
`counties in the United States, there are four main ways health officials and scientists who should
`
`know better may mislead the public on arguments concerning face mask efficacy in these
`
`counties as a means to slow the spread of the disease:
`
`i) not clearly distinguishing mask use for preventing the inhalation of Covid- l9 versus
`mask use for preventing the exhalation of Covid- l9
`
`ii) assuming that everything (droplets and aerosols) exhaled from the mouth of a person
`infected with Covid-19 contains live virus particles capable of causing disease in others
`and also focusing on scientific studies that track the behavior of Covid-19 in aerosols and
`droplets being "exhaled" from machines rather than studies tracking the behavior of
`Covid-19 in aerosols and droplets being exhaled directly from real live infected patients.
`
`iii) focusing on the small effect masks might have on cutting potential airborne spread of
`Covid-19 alone while ignoring the large effect masks probably have on increasing contact
`or surface spread
`
`iv) ignoring well-known downsides to wearing masks, such as substantial evidence
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00789-SMV Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 9 of 38
`
`showing that face masks cut down on oxygen intake for the wearers, potentially causing a
`myriad of short term and long term health problems.
`
`15. Relying on broad scientific consensus is once again the best approach in order to
`
`make the face mask data, arguments, and decisions more manageable and fact-based. For
`
`example, it is scientific consensus that:
`
`i) With the exception of top level N95 masks reserved exclusively for health care
`professionals, all other types of masks do little to prevent the mask wearer from inhaling
`Covid-19 aerosols. All face mask arguments should therefore be limited to how well
`masks work at preventing people from exhaling Covid-19 particles into the air, the main
`purpose of face mask requirements by government officials, according to government
`officials.
`
`ii) The best way to study the exhaled droplets and aerosols of infected people is to
`collect samples of droplets and aerosols directly from infected people, not samples of
`droplets and aerosols created from a machine. In this way the most definitive experiment
`to date concerning mask efficacy was published in April, 2020, and studied droplets and
`aerosols exhaled from real coronavirus patients with and without masks [Leung, N.H.L.,
`chu, D.K.w., Shiu, E.Y.c. et al. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and
`efficacy of face masks. Nat Med 26, 676-680 (2020).
`https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0843-21. Facts and data from this study alone should
`be determinative in arguments conceming the efficacy of face masks until this data is
`refuted by further studies. This includes data showing droplets and aerosols from people
`infected with coronaviruses contained no virus particles unless the person coughed,
`suggesting that simply breathing or talking is not enough for infected individuals to
`spread Covid-19 through the air.
`
`iii) The best way to slow the spread of any respiratory virus like influenza (the seasonal
`flu), rhinoviruses (the common cold), the coronaviruses like Covid-19, is to consider both
`methods of transmission (airborne transmission through the air and surface transmission
`through touch), not just airborne transmission. Face mask arguments tend to focus solely
`on airborne transmission of Covid-19 while ignoring the possible effect mass public face
`mask use has on increased transmission of Covid-19 through contact with contaminated
`surfaces, including an infected mask wearer touching his/her own contaminated mask
`after coughing into the mask or leaking nose mucous into the mask, then spreading the
`contamination to a myriad of public surfaces like shopping cart handles, pin pads, door
`knobs, door handles in the refrigerated foods section of the local grocery store, etc.
`
`iv) The best way to protect the public from health risks is to not ignore the most obvious
`health risk when making a decision about face masks, namely that face masks decrease
`the amount of oxygen intake for the wearer. The data on oxygen deprivation by masks is
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00789-SMV Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 10 of 38
`
`much more definitive than any data showing masks prevent airborne transmission of
`Covid-19, at least not in away that can just as easily be achieved by coughing into the
`crook of an elbow.
`
`16. Using this method of scientific consensus to ferret out what is the best data available
`
`concerning the efficacy of face masks, then balancing the pros and cons of masks using the most
`
`reliable data available, it is clear the best approach to slowing the spread of Covid-19 with
`
`minimal health risk to the public is to instruct the public to:
`
`i) avoid wearing masks so as not to decrease oxygen intake and so as to not accidentally
`contaminate public surfaces like doorknobs and shopping cart handles after touching a
`mask contaminated with virus particles.
`
`ii) never cough into a mask and always cough into the crook of the elbow because that is
`the least likely place you will touch with your hands and contaminate your hands with
`virus particles.
`
`This method also happens to be the best way to avoid infringing on plaintiffls First Amendment
`
`right to free speech and is the method any jurisdiction must follow in order to meet the second
`
`prong of the strict scrutiny standard of review.
`
`17. Plaintiff asks the court to declare YouTube Directive unconstitutional and issue an
`
`injunction barring defendant Hector Balderas from enforcing this law in his capacity as attorney
`
`general of New Mexico because YouTube Directive fails both prongs of the strict scrutiny
`
`standard of review and because there is a much better way to slow the spread of Covid-19
`
`without impinging on plaintiffls right of free speech, namely, banning use of masks by the
`
`general public and instructing the public to cough into the crooks of their elbows. Plaintiff is
`
`requesting an emergency injunctive order because there is a high likelihood the mask
`
`requirement in YouTube Directive is actually causing greater spread of Covid-19 in the public
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`t0
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00789-SMV Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 11 of 38
`
`than decreasing spread.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`18. The court has federal subject matter jurisdiction over this action because it is a
`
`constitutional challenge to a state law that violates the First Amendment to the United States
`
`Constitution, an action which is allowed under Ex Parte Young 209 U.S. 123 (1908).
`
`19. The District of New Mexico, Las Cruces Division, is the proper venue for this action
`
`because the violation of plaintiff s First Amendment right of free speech by YouTube Directive
`
`occurred when plaintiff was forced to wear aface mask on July 19, 2020, at the Walmart store at
`
`l02l E Pine St., Deming, NM 88030, which is within the jurisdiction of this court.
`
`Standing
`
`20. The three requirements of standing (injury, causation, and redressability) have been
`
`met because plaintiff s right to free speech has been violated (injury), and there is a chance that
`
`she will incur this injury again when she retums to New Mexico in the near future on another
`
`load (imminent injury). The injury was caused by Governor Lujan Grisham's executive order
`
`YouTube Directive requiring plaintiff to wear a mask while shopping at Walmart in Grande
`
`Prairie, NM (causation). Walmart stores do not require shoppers to wear masks unless there is a
`
`local or state order requiring masks while inside a commercial building. But for YouTube
`
`Directive, Walmart never would have required plaintiff to wear aface mask. The court can
`
`resolve this issue by striking down YouTube Directive as unconstitutional and issuing an
`
`injunction barring New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas from enforcing the law
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`il
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00789-SMV Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 12 of 38
`
`(redressability).
`
`Parties
`
`21. Plaintiff Huguette Nicole Young is a commercial tractor-trailer driver covering the
`
`11 western states including New Mexico. Plaintiff is also a well-established Ph.D. biochemist
`
`who had been offered a research position to work as a principal investigator at the NIAID in
`
`Bethesda, MD, in 1997 by the director himself, Anthony Fauci. Plaintiff currently has her work
`
`featured in two different chapters of most biochemistry textbooks as primary author, Huguette
`
`Nicole Pelletier. Plaintiff is also a law school graduate specializing in Constitutional Law.
`
`Plaintiff currently resides in Grand Junction, OR.
`
`22. Defendant Hector Balderas is the attorney general of New Mexico and is responsible
`
`for enforcing all the laws of New Mexico, including YouTube Directive.
`
`Legal Context
`
`23. The Supreme Court of the United States has adopted three standards of review
`
`concerning constitutional challenges to federal or state laws whenever a claim is made that a
`
`federal or state law violates a constitutional right of a citizen. From least protective of plaintiffls
`
`rights to most protective of plaintiff s rights, these three standards of review are: Rational basis,
`
`intermediate, and strict scrutiny, respectively. A rational basis standard means the law must be
`
`rationally related to a legitimate government interest, intermediate standard of review means a
`
`law must address an important government interest and must do so by means that are
`
`substantially related to that interest, and strict scrutiny requires that the law furthers a compelling
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`t2
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00789-SMV Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 13 of 38
`
`governmental interest and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Once a court
`
`determines that a strict scrutiny standard of review must be applied to the law, it is presumed that
`
`the law or policy is unconstitutional, and the government then has the burden of proving that its
`
`challenged law is constitutional.
`
`24. The more fundamental the right that is being violated by the government, the higher
`
`the standard of review and the greater the chance the law will be struck down as unconstitutional.
`
`Typically, if a right is explicitly stated in the Constitution, such as in the Bill of Rights, a
`
`violation of that right by the government will draw the highest, strict scrutiny standard of review.
`
`The right to free speech, the basis of this constitutional challenge, is specifically stated in the
`
`United States Constitutional under the First Amendment and therefore draws a strict scrutiny
`
`standard of review.
`
`25. As mentioned the strict scrutiny standard of review for any law requires a
`
`two-pronged test: l) The law must address a compelling govemmental interest, and 2) the law
`
`must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The court may strike down a law if it fails
`
`either prong of this test. However, under strict scrutiny a law may also be struck down if it can
`
`be shown there is a less invasive way to achieve the same compelling government interest. For
`
`instance, if the compelling government interest for requiring face masks in public is to decrease
`
`spread of Covid- 19 and a better way to achieve that goal, calling on all the most reliable
`
`scientific data as well as relying on basic logic and understanding of human behavior -- all while
`
`simultaneously protecting plaintiff s First Amendment right to free speech -- is to instruct
`
`anybody coughing in public to cough into the crook of their elbow and specifically not into a
`
`mask, then the court has full authority to strike down YouTube Directive as unconstitutional
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`l3
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00789-SMV Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 14 of 38
`
`even if YouTube Directive passes both prongs of the strict scrutiny test.
`
`26. Plaintiff claims YouTube Directive fails both prongs of the strict scrutiny test, and
`
`even if YouTube Directive were to pass the strict scrutiny standard of review, YouTube
`
`Directive would still be unconstitutional because there is a much better way to slow the spread
`
`of Covid-19 without requiring masks and violating plaintifls personal rights. That the better
`
`way involves requiring people to not wear face masks and more specifically , not cough into a
`
`face mask but instead cough into the crook of their arms, only adds to the urgency of striking
`
`down YouTube Directive as soon as possible.
`
`27 . The sad irony is that it is possible YouTube Directive might create a public health
`
`emergency where there otherwise would not be one without it. This not only underscores the
`
`urgency for injunctive relief barring YouTube Directive and preventing increased spread of
`
`Covid-19, but it reveals how arguments over standard of review are almost a moot point in this
`
`case because mask requirements like YouTube Directive probably do not even pass the lowest
`
`level of review for a law - the rational basis standard of review. If face masks most likely
`
`increase the spread of Covid-19 as plaintiff asserts, there is no rational basis for Governor Lujan
`
`Grisham and the State of New Mexico to issue an order that does the opposite of what it set out
`
`to achieve, and YouTube Directive does not even pass the rational basis of review.
`
`Facts
`
`Requirements for a public health emergency in New Mexico
`
`28. On July 13, 2020, Governor of New Mexico Michelle Lujan Grisham issued
`
`YouTube Directive requiring anybody in the state of New Mexico to wear a face mask while in
`
`public, with a few exceptions under which plaintiff does not qualiff. In issuing YouTube
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00789-SMV Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 15 of 38
`
`Directive Govemor Lujan Grisham invoked Section 12-10-17 of the AllHazard Emergency
`
`Management Act (AHEMA), which grants broad powers to the governor of New Mexico to issue
`
`orders to protect the public in cases of disaster. AHEMA Section 12-10-17 states:.
`
`"IJpon request of the mayor of a municipality or the sheriff of a county or a majority of
`the members of the governing body of the municipality or county having jurisdiction and
`after finding that a public disorder, disaster or emergency which affects life or property
`exists in the state, the governor may proclaim a state of emergency in the area affected.
`The proclamation becomes effective immediately upon its signing by the governor, but
`the governor shall give public notice of its contents through the public press and other
`news media."
`
`Viruses are rarely both deadly and contagious
`
`29. A virus that is highly contagious but is not very deadly, such as the flu, will not
`
`qualifu as a public health disaster under AHEMA Section l2-I0-17.
`
`30. A virus that is very deadly but is not very contagious, such as HIV-I, will not
`
`qualifl, as a public health disaster under AHEMA Section 12-10-17.
`
`31. Only a virus that is both deadly and contagious will qualify as a public health disaster
`
`under AHEMA Section 12-10-17. Due to the nature of viruses (e.g., it is not beneficial for a
`
`virus to kill its host, so many viruses mutate quickly to be less deadly), it is very rare for a virus
`
`to be both deadly and contagious. The only virus commonly cited as being both deadly and
`
`contagious is the Spanish Flu from 1918, which was contagious only because of extremely poor
`
`hygiene and not a lot of indoor plumbing in that time period. It is doubtful the Spanish Flu
`
`would have the same disastrous impact today.
`
`32. The court is expected to base its decisions on facts, reason and logic, not hysteria. If
`
`the systematic, fact-based approach to reviewing Covid-19 data outlined here is used, the court
`
`will likely determine that Covid-19 is very similar to other coronaviruses that have been around
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`t5
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00789-SMV Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 16 of 38
`
`for decades, i.e., contagious but not very deadly - much like the flu.
`
`33. Any lay person, politician, or judge can evaluate if a virus is deadly or contagious by
`
`requesting only two numbers from health officials: 1) The number of people who have died
`
`from the virus, and2) the number of people who have been infected with the virus. Scientists
`
`divide the number of deaths by the number of infections, then multiply the resulting number by
`
`100 to get a number called the mortality rate, which is reported at aYo. The higher the mortality
`
`rate, the more deadly a virus. Relatively innocuous viruses like the flu and Covid-l9 have a
`
`mortality rate of 0.lo/o to 7Yo. Intermediate viruses have a mortality rate in the lYo to ly%orange,
`
`and the most deadly viruses have mortality rates that are greater than lTyo.
`
`34. It may sound ominous for a state health official to say 200 people in New Mexico
`will die from Covid-l9 in 2020 (the current most accurate estimate) until the state health official
`
`is then forced to admit that 200,000 people in New Mexico will be infected with Covid-19 in
`
`2020 (the current most accurate estimate), putting Covid-19 on par with the flu in number of
`
`deaths caused and number of people infected, i.e., both the flu and Covid-19 have a mortality
`
`rate of close to 0.lYo and both will have infected about 200,000 in New Mexico in2020,
`
`meaning that while both the flu and Covid-19 are contagious viruses, neither is a particularly
`
`deadly virus.
`
`35. Most hysteria over Covid-19 comes from health officials (who should know better)
`
`purposely skewing data for the number of people who have died from Covid-19 or for the
`
`number of people infected by Covid-I9. They skew the numbers to inflate the number of people
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`l6
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00789-SMV Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 17 of 38
`
`who have died or deflate the number of people infected so the end result is a relatively high
`
`mortality rate (in the range of l%o to 5Yo) that inaccurately suggests Covid- l9 is relatively more
`
`deadly than the flu.
`
`How to obtain accurate death numbers - counting excess deaths
`
`36. Most inaccuracies in reports of the number of deaths due to Covid-19 come from
`
`death certificates that incorrectly list Covid-19 as the primary cause of death. Everybody has
`