In a rare move judge Thomas Moukawsher hearing the case ruled that the group's “expert witnesses” were unqualified to weigh in on the issue.
It's a hammer blow at the present for the CT Freedom Alliance’s ongoing legal fight against mask-wearing rules in Connecticut.
Superior Court Judge Thomas Moukawsher wrote to the court tha psychologist Andrew Kaufman and James Meehan Jr., an Oklahoma-based ophthalmologist, lack specific expertise and hold anti-science views that make them unsuitable to testify in a case that “would require the Judicial Branch to seize from the Executive and Legislative Branches power over a matter of public health,”
Darren Cunningham, an attorney for the state, questioned the qualifications
of both doctors, stating their work presents them as ideological advocates for one side of the issue rather than impartial experts on whether wearing masks can cause harm.
The decision came about after a hearing on the issue Monday after a motion was made by the state last week to dismiss the lawsuit.
Their previous work disclosed that Andrew Kaufman believes viruses do not exist and that COVID-19 is a hoax, while Meehan wrote a blog post saying that herd immunity will protect vulnerable members of society and prevent pandemics.
“There’s case law that says when an expert becomes an advocate for a cause, he, therefore, departs from the ranks of an objective expert witness and any resulting testimony would be unfairly prejudicial and misleading,” Cunningham said during Monday’s hearing. “And I’m seeking to show that (Meehan)
is that, an ideologue, who has very set views when it comes to this topic.”
The court ultimately decided that while Meehan is an expert ophthalmologist, he was not credible to testify on the subject at hand since he has not done any work related to COVID-19. As for Kaufman, the court “will not accept as an expert advisor to it on a matter of life or death a man who defies science so firmly established as to be beyond rational dispute.”
CT Freedom Alliance, with four Connecticut families as co-plaintiffs, including one from East Lyme, filed the lawsuit in August, arguing that requiring children to wear masks while in school is not only harmful but that the State Department of Education violated state law by improperly implementing the regulation. The plaintiffs also are arguing that requiring masks violates the state Constitution by impinging on the right to an education.
During the hearing on Monday, the attorneys representing the CT Freedom Alliance, Doug Dubitsky and Craig Fishbein, said their clients “are being compelled to wear masks, even though they are having very serious reactions” — such as trouble breathing, panic attacks and behavioral changes
— “to those masks.”
The state has issued guidelines for districts to follow when it comes to who can be exempt from wearing a mask in school, the plaintiffs also argued that the guidance in place is too restrictive, since the exemptions stated are only focussed on certain acute illnesses.
Cunningham stated that the state does not disagree that there are situations where students shouldn't have to wear a mask, but he does not see the guidelines as being as restrictive as the plaintiffs claim since it states that schools must consider and assess reasonable alternative accommodations for studentswith disabilities who are unable to wear a mask.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologist
https://witnessdirectory.com/signup.php
