Hey, there! Log in / Register
Sometimes the wheels of justice grind exceedingly fast: Judge tosses Oregon trucker's lawsuit over Massachusetts mask requirements just one day after it's filed
By adamg on Sat, 10/10/2020 - 12:32pm
On Thursday, an Oregon resident who says she's both a long-haul trucker and a biochemist filed a suit in Boston federal court to overturn Massachusetts requirements for mask wearing in stores - saying that would infringe on her rights as a free American should she drive here and stop at one of the Walmarts off the Massachusetts Turnpike.
On Friday, US District Court Judge Richard Stearns tossed her suit, saying she had no grounds to file it to begin with.
In her suit against Attorney General Maura Healey, Huguette Nicole Young, of Junction City, OR, wrote that Covid-19 is basically just a hoax, anyway, but that Gov. Baker's requirement to wear a mask should she ever drive here again and stop in a Walmart would muzzle her First Amendment right to free speech - and possibly increase her odds of contracting the virus because masks are icky. She sought an immediate injunction to halt enforcement of the requirement.
In his order dismissing the suit the next day, Stearns said Young failed to prove she'd actually been harmed by the requirement, since she has not actually driven through Massachusetts since the pandemic, whether real or not, began this past spring. And she offered no proof that she would be returning to Massachusetts any time soon, he wrote, so she lacks the "standing" to sue or seek an injunction against the order because it has not directly harmed her and poses no immediate threat to her.
She resides in Oregon and has no plans to travel to Massachusetts. With the combined loss of her job and commercial driver’s license, it is unlikely that she will return to Massachusetts.
Also:
Young’s claims are premature as she has not shown that she will suffer hardship if court consideration is withheld.
Young's complaint (1.45M PDF).
Judge's order (490k PDF).
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Kooks everywhere.
A quick look at the plaintiff's Twitter timeline and it's obvious that the person is not well. Beyond biochemistry, long-haul trucking or lawyering.
There’s just so much there
But I’m going to concentrate on the fact that Walmart is mandating mask wearing overall, so her issue is with a private company.
I’d also love see her CV.
Huguette Nicole Young
Search on that name and you won't find a LinkedIn profile, like I was hoping to find, but you will see a nutcase who sure likes to go to court.
Her Twitter bio includes
Her Twitter bio includes "Repeal all Constitutional Amendments after #12, starting with #16."
Obviously, the 16th is federal income tax powers, so I can understand why someone would want that gone, but I'd say that someone who wants to repeal the prohibition on slavery, as well as give up their own right to vote is certainly on an interesting mission...
Of course, repealing Constitutional Amendments requires later Amendments (see 21st repealing the 18th), so if you repealed the 16th, then at some point in your mission to repeal all Amendments after the 12th, you'd have to repeal your repeal of the 16th.
EDIT: One other thing I will add, after browsing her legal complaint for this case, was that her scientific work was under the name Huguette Pelletier, so you likely won't find much establishing her credentials by using the name this suit was filed under.
well done, Brianj
A lot of people comment without reading much past the headline. You actually read her legal complant. Nice work!
And funny note on her circular logic.
Huguette Nicole Young:
Huguette Nicole Young sounds like an absolutely stupid and willfully ignorant woman who couldn't care less about who she puts at risk for the Covid 19 virus. It's disgusting. Not interested in meeting her--that's for damned sure!
"With the combined loss of her job and commercial... license"
I didn't look at either the complaint or the judge's order -- but if I read this excerpt correctly, she doesn't hold a driver's license that would allow her to work as a trucker. So to describe herself as a "long-haul trucker" is an error in fact. That alone would seem to be cause for dismissal of the case.
But it would be interesting to know why she lost that license.
Interesting
Oregon is requiring masks right now, too.
And private stores and chains require them in all their locations nationwide, irrespective of the local laws.
I’m more annoyed at the
I’m more annoyed at the plaintiff. But I’m not thrilled with the judge’s response either.
Let’s say that, rather than this load of crap argument about masks restricting free speech, Massachusetts actually did pass a law that restricted free speech unfairly, or was discriminatory against a protected group or something. Why can’t someone make an issue out of that without first coming here and having their rights violated?
An infringement on her rights?
Funny how these mask deniers always say they want freedom. Virtually every law in the books is an infringement of your rights.
Want to sell booze out of your house? Nope.
Want to build a house with no regard to building codes? Nope.
Want to drive 180 mph? Nope.
Want to walk around naked? Nope.
Want sell hot dogs/burritos/ice cream/fries/sausages/pot/etc. on the street? Nope.
Just put an effen mask on, magat.
And most importantly in this case
Wnat to drive a tractor trailer cross country without a CDL? Nope.
How does one lose a CDL?
Judging from some of her legal career, per Google, it probably takes the effort she can put in.
If her CDL was out of Oregon,
If her CDL was out of Oregon, where she lived, it was for one of these reasons:
https://www.oregon.gov/odot/dmv/pages/driverid/federal_cdl_reqs.aspx
Her CDL could have been out of California, as she filed a suit against a former employer in CA, Kenco Logistic Services, last year, for issues that allegedly occurred starting in 2016.
It's definitely easier to lose a CDL than it is to lose a regular driver's license. The threshold for suspensions is much lower, and many of the infractions will apply against your CDL even if they were committed in a non-commercial vehicle.
That lawsuit
The Kenco lawsuit was because their closed circuit video system in the truck caught her using her cell phone behind the wheel while driving twice within a few months.
Accordingly, that's at least a 60 day suspension according to your link (maybe the same or worse in CA?). It's also possible she let her CDL lapse so she can just take people to court all the time instead. Her name turns up lawsuits against anyone and everyone from CA to MA.
I don't know what they put in the water...
In the Great Northwest but whatever it is, it makes White people crazy. Why do they want to get sick and maybe die instead of wearing a mask? And why do they bring long guns to anti-mask/lockdown rallies?