Fighting Back: Warren V. Norred Talks COVID Lawsuit Strategy

Richard Jacobs: Hello, this is Richard Jacobs with the Secrets of attorney Marketing podcast and also Finding Genius podcast. My guest today is Attorney Warren Norred; the last name is Norred. The reason why I contacted him is he has filed suit on behalf of some plaintiffs in the state of Texas due to some issues surrounding COVID. So I wanted to have him on and see what the suit is about and such as here, what he is doing, and why. So Warren, thanks for coming. 

Warren V. Norred: Thanks for having me.   

Richard Jacobs: If you could, can you give me a little bit of background on, first, your practice and what you do and is this normally your practice area and then, we’ll get into the details of the suit. 

Warren V. Norred: Sure. My practice is about third bankruptcy and about third business litigation and then about a third intellectual property and my background is I have a Masters Degree in Electrical Engineering and I deal with patent law and all things that are associated with that. this is not a normal thing for me, at least it wasn’t but I’ve always had a count of 10% of our firm, that our activities were in the world, what we call white hat law which is just lawsuits that need to be filed. So we started doing these kinds of things for trademark bullies and things like that. We did an open carry suit a couple of years ago. So the area of constitutional law started to be intriguing to me and then when this pandemic showed up and of course, we didn’t know what this was going to be like in March. 

We didn’t know if it would be a zombie apocalypse and bringing out your dead or what it was going to be. So nobody was really filing a suit or talking about filing suit back then and so everybody closed like they were supposed to but as time went on, it became clear that we were learning things but we were not implementing what we learned and we were continuing just to keep everything shut down so I started getting attention from a lot of people saying we need to file a lawsuit and that’s what led to them all. So starting again, in April, we filed suit. 

Richard Jacobs: Overall, you are right. The first month or so, fine. 6 months out plus and everyone is still saying we don’t know and there is no guidance or nothing. It’s ridiculous but that’s probably my opinion.  

Warren V. Norred: There is no doubt about it. It only pretends like we have learned nothing over the last 6 months. It’s as though we are stuck still back here trying to figure all that out and our Governor Abbot here issued today, his weekly release of how much freedom will get to pee on. He said, well, we are going to continue to have all bars shut down and it’s a procrastinating solution. It’s the assumption that no bar can operate well enough to even be open. So, bars in Texas can’t even have private band practice or have anything going on where they are violating the rules and so it’s just very awkward. He is allowing people, if you visit your loved one at a nursing home, you have to follow the rules of this bureaucracy which has yet to give out the rules and which will be again, the question in nature. It is going to assume everybody is the same and it’s not going to be sufficient because the nursing homes don’t really know how to deal with it instead of saying hey look, nursing homes, make a set of rules that you can live with and that your clients can live with, be reasonable and go about your business.  It’s never that. It’s never figure it all out and see what you can do. No, it’s got to be talked down by executive order, unlegislated.

Richard Jacobs: the funny thing is, actually, to my understanding, a few weeks ago, this exact reverse circumstance happened with the schools. Governor abbot said to the schools that you decide what you want to do and how. So that’s, why would you instruct one industry and have a top 10 mandate and in other industries, you say, yeah, do what you like.    

Warren V. Norred: Well, of course, there is a teacher’s lobby and there is TEA, and part of the problems that we see is that the organizations that are more affiliated with the state are more free to do certain things as long as they stay within these rules. But then t6he rules are weird. I am on the board of a Charter School and we were told, well, we have the freedom to do what we want but if anybody comes down with COVID and you are not wearing a mask, well then, we are going to have this total quarantine of everybody in the class whereas if you do wear the mask then you have more freedom if somebody does come down. Instead of saying, you know what, in Tarrant County, which is the County of Fort Worth, to date, we have zero deaths for anybody 0-24 years old. Zero deaths, not just one or two but zero. 

So we are creating all kinds of havoc. It’s easy for the Governor sitting it off saying you guys work it all out with the bureaucrats but do what I tell you and then, at the same time, I mean this happened yesterday, we had a hearing on Shelly Luther’s counterclaims where we are suing the state of Texas and the Governor for counterclaims for shutting her down, that we added that to the suit. The city sued her, the city of Dallas sued her, then we fought back and we are still fighting about that. That’s an ongoing lawsuit and we added counterclaims against the state and the governor and the state says, well okay. The governor says he is not enforcing anything. It’s just clever subterfuge in saying I, the governor is going to issue these executive rules that say you’ve got to all do these things but since I am personally not showing up on a steed with my .45, I’m not the actual one enforcing them and you can’t sue me. 

You have to sue this bureaucracy. The bureaucracy then turns and says we are just following the court’s orders. It’s this comedic point, everybody pointing at everybody else and then the courts go along with it. So yesterday, the court said, we are going to let the Governor and state out and now we are trying to figure out if we are going to appeal that. But it goes on and on and on like this. Now, I’m not doing them the damage, it’s these other people, even though the other people say, in their rules, the governor says to do it this way, so that’s what we are doing. 

Richard Jacobs: So what are some of the; It’s up to you. I don’t know if it’s giving away your hand, but what are some of the legal strategies you’ve contemplated, whether you’ve seen other attorneys put forth that, either seem to be working or not working?  

Warren V. Norred: Well, for a lot of what we are doing here, it’s adding spice to the recipe of the public discussion. So we file a lawsuit. I certainly don’t file, I want to win, right. I’m an attorney, I have an ego and I want to win. But winning is not, but if I win and everybody; it still sucks, they can’t see their grandmother, that’s not the win. What I want is to change social policy. So, whenever, for example, Shelly went to jail and filed that writ of habeas corpus application and a court granted that but at the same time, the Texas Supreme Court, they didn’t really grant it. They granted it temporarily while they considered it and that briefing is going on into this month and that’s been going on 6 months now, right. So that’s ongoing and then we say, well, we are going to file this writ, she turned in to her cause for the lapse, and Supreme Court releases her at least temporarily and Governor Abbot issues a one-page executive order that says hey, I didn’t mean people go to jail. Nobody goes to jail for this. 

So, now we have this really weird situation where you have a Governor that issues an executive order that allows people to go to jail. Shelly Luther, she didn’t actually go to jail for directly breaking rules. She got to sleep in jail for her contempt of continuing to operate after the court told her to stop operating and a result of a temporary restraining order the week before. But indirectly, she is in jail for operating. Well, Governor sends out an order that says I am retroactively changing the past so that nobody can go to jail due to local order. Well, that judge filed a local order. He issued a local order. So, now I’m going to go to that judge and argue that the court believes that the Governor can make these rules then how is the court going to deal with the fact that the Governor said that all of your orders can’t put somebody in jail and you put somebody in jail. 

Richard Jacobs: What is the core of the Governor’s authority? Is it that we are in a state of emergency? Where is the root from which this ability comes?   

Warren V. Norred:  Okay, so there is the Disaster Act of 1975 and I’m going to caution folks, everybody who is listening to this probably knows that this is not legal advice but it’s worse than that. every state has its own gig. So, we have, in the state of Texas, the Disaster Act of 1975 and it was passed and then in 2004 and 2005, we had a bunch of Katrina and other hurricanes and so we amended the Disaster Act in 2005 to allow the Governor to basically give authority to local mayors and county judges. A county judge is like the head of a committee. He is not an actual judge in those counties, to basically make their minor kings during a disaster. So it allows them to control the going and coming from an area and it’s fully designed to handle floods and tornadoes and fires. It’s not designed to handle diseases. 

Then, what’s funny about Texas also is we have a part of our actual state constitution that says that we allow the governor to call a special session in the case of disease prevalence and he actually uses that phrase, disease prevalence, as a reason to call a special session. So, you can’t do that in one day or 7 days. So, if you are a legitimate expert in flood or disaster, the governor can make these decisions but it’s going to be ongoing. The idea should be that you are going to call, the Governor is going to call a special session to deal with this. So, the Disaster Act, he announces that disaster and he implements his abilities to make all kinds of rules. The problem is the Disaster Act, it conflicts with the actual Texas constitution. The Texas constitution says that only the Texas legislature, Article 1 Section 28 says no power suspending laws in the state shall be exercised except by the legislature. So even if the state legislature wants to delegate that power to the Governor, it really can’t. 

Then where I was talking about a minute ago, executive powers, Article 4, Section 8 says the Governor may under extraordinary circumstances convene the legislature at the seat of government or a different place in the case of the prevalence of disease threat. So, it’s a very odd thing. I’m not sure how many state constitutions have that. So that’s the foundation for the Governor’s authority. The problem is that whenever you start realizing how long is this going to go on? It can go on quite a ways. 

Richard Jacobs: Wasn’t it just extended? 

Warren V. Norred: He generally sends it once a month but he is not the one doing the damage, right? So we have a city in the FW area, Colleyville and Colleyville said, we are going to bypass all of these things. They closed for a while and then they said, I think we are just going to continue to move along. So there are a few more COVID cases but they are basically open. They haven’t opened the bars but it’s not the city that is attacking them. This is where I go back to what I said a minute ago. The local, the state, or regulatory agencies have a lot of control over bars, Texas; the TABC controls the bars. So they come around and they say that you are not operating responsibly because you are open and they shut them down and suspend them and they are going to yank licenses. Meanwhile, the Chili’s down the street has a bar and it is open. It is just business as usual in that bar because it has a restaurant surrounding it. 

So it’s just absurd but the idea, it goes back to unequal protection of the law which in Texas is Article 1, Section 3 of the Bill of Rights in Texas. The other thing that is hard to deal with here is that the federal government is not good at protecting economic rights. It’s really not good at protecting personal rights in emergency situations. It’s the famous Jacobsen versus Massachusetts case, a federal case where there are 4 vaccinations. So people will say that’s the issue. Well, if you want to seek or redress in federal court, you’ve got to deal with that. Now, apparently, that is being done. In Pennsylvania, there is, of course, you’ve got a good Trump appointee out there saying, no, let’s try liberty. Let’s just try that. so we’ll see what happens. 

Richard Jacobs: So, what are the things that you are working on?  Again, you are seeing the landscape. I know it’s kind of a funhouse landscape where nothing makes sense but what’s the path forward, do you think? Is it that there need to be attorneys in every state that are filing suits of a certain nature like they get free of it. 

Warren V. Norred: Part of it is creating a social fabric of people that understand that it’s crazy and I’ll look at the polls and I’ll talk to people and get into areas where people don’t really hang out and it’s still fairly true. I want my guests, the majority of people, even in Texas are really convinced that masks are a thing even though CDC has stated, they’ve got a study that they put on their system not too long ago, on their website that said masks outside of healthcare environment are valueless. Pretty bold, strong statement. It’s not helpful and yet it’s everywhere. So what we are doing is, and we have had the Texas Supreme Court state on multiple occasions, look we are watching this. It seems to be a bit much but we are not there yet. So we have to work these things up, work it up, for example, and show, in this case, we are trying to figure out how much we can appeal because we are never going to get justice in this court. We just aren’t. So we need to get to the Texas Supreme Court. 

We might get to the Fifth Court of Appeals which is in Dallas and there are some good judges there that they might have an appreciation for equal protection of the law and don’t think that every utterance of the word emergency means that a tyrant can do whatever he wants, even if he means well. So, if we get to the Supreme Court and it’s properly briefed, I think the Supreme Court might pick a bosh on some of these things. Then, of course, there is a rising tide. Ordinary people are recognizing that this is stupid. So, we have to have more of that where the shutdown and treatment of schools is waking a lot of what I call ordinary laymen. Someone says what, I need to find a way to take care of my kid during the day, I thought we had public schools. Well, sometimes, in a way, we do but, in a way, we don’t. 

So, these people are all saying, look, this is not sustainable. I can’t work at home forever; I can’t just decide that I’m going to do these things. We are paying full taxes, are you going to give us a rebate on the taxes? No. so, the more of this that happens, the nursing home lawsuit that we filed last week is another good example. Ordinary people, lots and lots of people have loved ones there in nursing homes or in some institution where they are being taken care of and a lot of them do go and see their loved ones from time to time. so, this idea, everybody can read these things and these lawsuits. We post them publicly on our website and they can see these are heart-wrenching stories. It depends on what you identify with, right.  We filed a lawsuit on behalf of about a dozen bars last month and every bar owner and every small employer reads this and he goes, oh my. What are we doing? How crazy is this? 

You’ve got, this actually happened; one of my clients a couple of days ago, it was last weekend. Five fourth cops, fourth is coded force for people and TADC show up. Well, is this really the highest and best use of government resources? In March or it was in April of this year, we had the two folks in El Paso. These are just people doing nails illegally and you read this thing and there is a metaphorical SWAT team of government bureaucrats who are staking out these people for illegally doing nails. I kid you not. There’s like a dozen people involved in this thing and you go, what is wrong with you people? So, you have to expose these things. So, you do the lawsuits and there is a rising tide of look, you’ve got to do something. 

Richard Jacobs: what do you think; I followed Abbot very closely on what he was saying and doing and for a while, I thought wow. He is really making sense and he is saying, we believe Texans are smart enough to figure things out for themselves and act responsibly and all of a sudden, with the masks, it turns around and then, with the bars closing. Do you think he is just; he is under political pressure or he fears not continuing and that’s why he has changed his tone or is there something else going on?

Warren V. Norred: I think it’s a bit of short-term political thinking. That’s what I have to believe. Surely, he is not so stupid as to think that masks do anything in a non-healthcare environment. He has been my best friend of 40 years, he used to be our doctor and he has been telling me that since the beginning that ordinary people wearing masks, you go to get a smoothie at some smoothie facility and they are wearing gloves. They are wearing the same gloves for a shift.  That’s ridiculously stupid and any educated person can look at that and say that it’s actually worse than actually washing your hands every 30 minutes. You are gathering all the germs and putting them into one space for the entire shift. My buddy is the ER doc. He goes through a box of gloves every shift. A box of gloves. So, this is worse. 

Back in 9/11, since we just had that celebration or, that time, we had something we called the security theater where people are just trying to feel good. The bureaucrats are having people walk around airports with unloaded weapons. This is useless but the idea of it was that many people feel safe but the problem, of course, is that I cannot. Of course, people have contacted me every day with some horror stories. A guy was talking and sent me a video yesterday, walking around in a convenience store in Waco and he gets accosted, detained by cops for 30 minutes, and gets his rights to read and Taser pointed at him because for the crime which is a non-crime of not wearing a mask. Even abbot’s order, even the over the top order says you can’t be detained for not wearing a mask. It says that in the order and yet cops are detaining people. 

Richard Jacobs: That’s what I wanted to ask you. when you interact with normal businesses, if you are in the store and they get really aggressive over whatever it is, can any business deny you service based on that? what’s the rules when you are walking into a given business?

Warren V. Norred: well, there is the legal side and then there is the real world. So I spend more than an hour every day talking about masks and businesses and these kinds of issues. In the legal world, if you’ve got an ABA issue that keeps you from having to wear a mask, in theory, in legal theory, they are not supposed to be able to ask you for your paperwork and why you can’t wear a mask. You should be able to say, I have an ABA issue, I don’t have to wear masks and the accommodation is simple. I’m just not going to breathe on anybody while I am here. But in the real world, what is going to happen is some cop who has got quasi immunity and he can never be sued because the government is going to protect him and then he is going to say; he is going to detain you for 30 minutes and you are going to get read the Riot Act. 

As they say, you can beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride. It’s going to be a nightmare. I just talked to a gal that received a two-year criminal trespass for trying to walk into Tarrant County Commissioner’s Court without a mask. You can’t be detained and yet they’ve given her a criminal trespass because now, she has to file a lawsuit to get rid of that. It’s horrible. So, in the real world, I have T-Mobile. If I go to T-Mobile and this happened last month, I went to T-Mobile and they were crying mask. There is a time and a place for the fight. I’m never going to say, I never pull out the attorney card, right. You just sound like an idiot; you sound like a jerk. I’m just going to do what I need to do to get my line. That’s what I am going to do. But the people need to get a clue that their attorney has some sort of don’t you care about me? I hear it all the time. People really are fools. They really believe that you are imperiling their lives by walking into the facility for the 20 feet of the restaurant, to order and to sit down.  

Richard Jacobs: I know, I know.  

Warren V. Norred: Once you sit down, it’s okay. We have established that as the social norm. once you sit down, even though you are 6 feet from somebody and I’m a full-sized adult male, if I give you a raw sneeze, if I sneeze, it bet it goes 10 feet very easily. But no, it’s absurd. 

Richard Jacobs: So, I guess, for people interacting with businesses, airplanes, whatever it is, it can get ugly with the police coming even though there really is no authority to do it. What about refusing service? I mean, there is definitely being done, so….

Warren V. Norred: Okay, so people say, well, can I sue this person? The real answer is looking, if you bring me a bucket of money and you say Warren, I want you to take this bucket of money and I want you to turn it into pain for everybody that refuses me service, I am okay with that because everybody who is playing at this façade needs to feel pain. So, I am okay with that but you need to recognize upfront that when judges look at this, you are going to get a judicial eye roll. That’s what’s going to happen because we are going to say look, you just go back to your life till this is over. You are just taking up judicial space in my courtroom or with this minor issue. It’s just wearing your mask, wear your mask. That’s what you are going to get. Now, you can still fight it and that is one of the problems we had with this nursing home fight. 

Nobody wants to sue the nursing home that has taken care of their grandmother. That’s a legitimate fear but do you know what? That nursing home can do what it wants and it could fight on your side instead of just rolling over and saying, okay, Department of Health Services, we are going to do whatever you want blindly and we are going to keep our people from doing anything. So I don’t have any sympathy for these businesses that are going along with it. My business is no closed. My law firm never closed, not one day and people are saying what are you doing? Well, we go to work. I’ve got a mask policy. So, if you want me to wear a mask while I’m talking to you, I will wear the mask. Why is that? Because I like money and I will wear a mask for you while we are talking and there are people who are genuinely fearful. 

I have close friends that are very, let’s just say, they have a few more years on them than I did and I’m 57. It’s not like I’m 35. So I’m nearing the age where I know people can be hit hard by this stuff and I could be hit hard by this but I don’t know how these things are going to mutate. I’m not a scientist, I don’t know what is going to happen. All I know is that we can’t have a sustainable existence until there is a vaccine. We can’t just say 2 weeks to close it down and 6 months later, you still can’t get a drink at a legitimate bar, you have to go to a Chili’s where the government has decided that this kind of bar is okay. So, at some point, we have to say, look, I always like telling a story. You may remember the movie Casablanca. Top 10 movies on everybody’s list and Rick’s bar has to close down because there is gambling going on there, right and Rick is talking to his accountant. In this movie, there is this whole scene and I love this. 

I saw this last month and he is talking to his guy saying how long can we last, close down? He says oh, 2, 3 weeks, Rick, then we are done. That is a reality for all of these bars. The idea that you can just stay closed unending, that is absurd and they shouldn’t have to do that whenever you are not closing the bars everywhere else. Whenever you are allowing alcohol, we never shut down alcohol stores, liquor stores. No problem there, they are essential, really. So, it turns into the vape shops, vape shops had to close but liquor stores never did. It smells like class prejudice to me. That’s just what it smells like. So what are you going to do? You file lawsuits. 

Richard Jacobs: So, what do you think is the endgame for the politicians and the local government, the federal government, and what do you think is going to be, the change. Do you think that enough litigation is going to cause the change or what do you think it’s going to take?  

Warren V. Norred: I think a couple of things. I think that when we get in a legitimate way to the State Supreme Court with a case where the State Supreme Court can push back a little bit but not in a way that’s embarrassing to govern, they will do it. They will say something like you can’t do X. I’ll give you an example, in the city of Cleburne, Texas, Mayor Scott Caine issued his executive order. His executive order said that since you shouldn’t be doing anything other than essential tasks, we are going to only allow one person from a household, barring any guardianship issues or taking care of kids, we are going to say that you can only have one person go do an essential task at a time. So, I have a client and this is currently in the District Court, Federal District Court. It’s the only District Court it got filed in on this issue. 

So, he got cited for going to a Wal Mart with his wife and it’s more than one person traveling on an essential task. So, we have a federal lawsuit on that one. a court can find for us in that lawsuit and not embarrass the Governor. So, we are going to trim around the edges and I don’t know, I’ll just re-elect our judges and we nominate judges first. There is a process for it, as you may or may not know, I’m a member of the State Republican Executive Committee. So, I’m kind of the clergy in the GOP in Texas. You might say we are the Bishop brick of the state party. So, we see the governor and I’m one of his allies but they get; 4 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Governor Abbot.

So, you don’t just step on the guy who helped put you in power by a strong lawsuit. 

Now, so if I can keep my lawsuit against the city of Dallas and get it all the way to the Supreme Court, I think the Supreme Court will feel free to say no, you are enforcing a bunch of rules that are not laws and you are doing it in a way that is unfair and really smack it down in a way that they wouldn’t be comfortable doing that to the Governor. Of course, it’s absurd but there is some real politic here, right. So, you have to do things that courts feel uncomfortable doing. They don’t want to say that Governors; they don’t want to say that the Disaster Act is completely unconstitutional and to be fair, we have opposed, in several of our lawsuits, we have said that the Disaster Act is unconstitutional, either on its face or as applied and every attorney recognizes that kind of language. If I had a rule, that by the law said only Christian churches could use the park, that’s facially unconstitutional. 

That’s just obvious, you can see the words. But if I said churches, that anybody can use the park but in practice, only Christian churches were able to use the park because of that application process, we would say that law was unconstitutional as applied because we are only operating it the wrong way.  So, I think that we have a strong argument for the Disaster Act being unconstitutional as applied in this case because they are over the top. These rules are pro-Christian in that they are top, down and they are awkward. We’ve ignored the principles of federalism. If you have the state legislature get together and it says; the state legislature could get together through Zoom if they want to and it can decide what to do. It can make laws and that law-making ability, we would make rules for coming down from the COVID nonsense at a sane rate, in a way that’s not so awkward. 

What’s happening right now is, I’d still like to talk about the math, in a story like this, they will say that it’s been for more than a month, I think that you could have limited access through glass windows in various ways and so the Governor could say, see I’m fixing this. But in practice, it hasn’t worked out because each nursing home has to get permission through a certain number of rules and they’ve got to have no COVID for two weeks, all this stuff. Well, the reality of it is that very few people can actually make use of that. It’s almost the old Soviet Union had a Bill of Rights, just like we have a Bill of Rights. It would say things like, the Soviet Bill of Rights would say you can practice your religion completely as allowed by law and then the law wouldn’t allow you to do it. so, they go, see, we have a Bill of Rights. 

Yeah, you have a Bill of Rights but not so much. That’s what we have going on right now in the state of Texas. We are all Texans; we are all pro-liberty and we do all these great things. We turn out our shirts and say look at us, we are pro-liberty but in practice, it’s not that way today, just to say, f we could get, our greatest could use improvement at the very least and a lot of that is my good friend, the Governor of Texas Greg Abbot deciding that he wants to; you asked what the motivations are. I think that the Governor, just like our president, same problem. He pays attention to COVID deaths, bankruptcies due to dying businesses is not a statistic he cares about, it just isn’t. Not in the real world, not by his demonstration. He wants to say, well, you are just saying economy over people. No, it’s people over people. They are just people. 

They are just real people being damaged by this. Our litigants in the nursing home fight, these people were married for 54 years, 54 years, they are both in a nursing home and the man dies and his wife doesn’t get a chance to talk to him. He’s gone. 

Richard Jacobs: That’s crazy.  

Warren V. Norred: Its nuts. So, is that about people? No. Do you think that those people were really all that worried about COVID or do you think that they would have liked to have been together until their dying days. It’s not about the economy, it’s about people having to live lives. You can’t just; Billy Bob is one of the largest honkytonks or one of the oldest honkytonks in the state and we already shut that down. It’s huge but we are going to say that no matter what, one of my litigants in the bar fight went out of his way. He is going to have a charity concert. So it’s not commercial, no alcohol on-premises or it’s all locked up. Nobody is drinking alcohol. He has tape between the tables. Everybody has pre-filed their tickets, they are showing up. Everybody is social distancing; they are going to listen to a band. 

Nobody is paying money for anything, TADC comes in, jackbooted thugs, you’ve got to go home, the authority wants you to clear out. Okay, so no matter what, these people have to shut down. But hey, all you guys can just go over at Chili’s and do whatever you want. That’s fine. 

Richard Jacobs: Right. Exactly, yeah. So, again, the people listening to this will be, again, from my two lists. One will be attorneys, various practice areas around the US. For them in particular, is there anything they can do? Should they choose to contact you or work with you or join in on the fight? What are your thoughts for them?

Warren V. Norred: I would say this. We have a small network of people that are talking about these things. Attorneys should get a hold of me; I mean this is a challenge that I make to every attorney.

We’ve got to fight back on this. I know that the layman is scared to death because that’s what he has been told to do. I know that Shelly Luther when she went to Michigan, she had friends that told her why did you come up here to kill us? She goes, what’s wrong with you? they were really; there are many people in this country who are truly scared to death. So, we have to recognize that those people need to be brought back to the fold slowly. You can’t just throw a science article at them and say don’t be stupid. They really have gotten ingrained in this and they have to be shown peacefully and slowly that there are risks that you take in life. 

This one is not that big of a deal. It’s serious but it’s not something that you have to shut down the whole world over. So, I would encourage any attorney who wants to get involved to send me an email and I’m easy to get a hold of, warren@norredlaw.com. There is a growing body of attorneys who are willing to stand up and say and a lot of it is people, there are these business attorneys and they’ll get a call from one of their clients that says, hey, I work over in Texas or in Ohio and they are doing over this. Can you do something about that? sometimes the answer is going to be no. No, we really can’t because they are working on this but I suspect that if you look, there is a state law that they can challenge or they can do something. But they have to be looking for that, they have to be looking for a case like Alice Snyder in Cleburne where that’s just over the top. Nobody should say that. 

Really? You are going to shut down; a husband and wife can’t travel together based on a Governor’s order that you should only essentially task. No, you don’t get to do that. 

Richard Jacobs: Yeah. Makes sense. 

Warren V. Norred: But you’ve got to think outside the box. It’s hard to do.  

Richard Jacobs: Okay, Thanks Warren. Thank you so much for coming on the podcast. I really appreciate it. 

Warren V. Norred: I really enjoyed it. Thanks for having me.