Bees Are Officially Fish Per a Court… Seriously

A fundamental reason for the situation we are dealing with the death jabs

ABOVE: the new fish – really?

So, I am trying to determine how to write this article while still maintaining a modicum of professionalism. Why you ask? Well, after spending quite a number of years in undergrad and then law school plus dealing with all the other nonsense required to become an attorney it seems to me that those of us that practice law ought to at least pretend to not be idiots. Apparently not everyone agrees.

Here is a link to a real ruling from a real court in California: Bees are Fish Ruling – Seriously. This is a direct quote from the ruling:

Although the term fish is colloquially and commonly understood to refer to aquatic species, the term of art employed by the Legislature in the definition of fish in section 45 is not so limited.

This ruling has the effect of adding bees to the endangered species list and hinges on the dubious idea that at some point the law protecting fish was amended to include amphibians (this was enumerated in the law) and so somehow that allows the inclusion of bees. Seriously.

You may be asking yourself, okay, this is absurd but why is Tom so fussy about this? Well, in early September of 2020 we filed the first major anti-COVID fraud case. Within the fact pattern of that case we included cited evidence that lays out all of the fraud we are now seeing “new studies” on today that people are outraged about. Two years ago, had the Court we filed this document in granted us discovery (which would have allowed us to see the evidence the government is relying on to promote this fraud) but then decided to remove discovery after an ex parte conversation with the State’s attorneys (this means a conversation that our side was not included in and is more than a bit “unusual”). Had that case moved forward properly none of this fraud would have been able to proceed – including the authorization of the death jabs.

Alas that case did not move forward and here we are. Per the federal rules of civil procedure, when a case is filed, the factual allegations are to be construed as true as they are alleged. If there is a case and controversy then the case should move on to discovery. In the rare instance that a case is filed where there is no proper cause of action stated or where there is clearly no relationship between the facts alleged and reality a judge may rule the case to be “implausible” and throw it out prior to discovery. This is the foundation of standing and is something that SHOULD be rarely used. Instead, it is my opinion, that the courts are using these rules in the same way that the “bees are fish” case was decided – to create law where it does not fit or to dodge cases that may not go the way an activist judge wants.

The legal profession and America itself must have a fair and impartial judiciary. Our Constitution and nation cannot function if the rule of law means nothing more than what an activist on the bench wants it to mean on any given day. Words have meaning, the rules of the courts have meaning, and nothing is more important to the stability of our nation than ensuring the people have a legitimate opportunity to be heard where there is a question about an issue of law.

It is time for the level heads in our court system to stand and make a clear statement as to activists on the bench. There is no place for them and if you are on the bench and do not understand that then you have no business being there (in my opinion). If you want to advocate be a lawyer, if you want to fairly and impartially determine the meaning and application of the law to a particular set of facts then and only then should you be a judge.

sign up for breaking news

Get all of Attorney Tom Renz’s Breaking News Updates as they happen!