Lawyers v. PRC
In the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Las Vegas firm Eglet Adams has sued the Chinese government for monetary and other damages on behalf of four Nevada businesses and one Illinois business. “The People’s Republic of China (PRC) and other defendants intentionally misled the international community about the coronavirus and its devastating medical and economic effects,” said lawyer Robert Eglet. “It is believed that defendants intimidated doctors, scientists, journalists and lawyers and ordered the destruction of medical testing data which would have exposed defendants’ attempted cover-up.” Class members could exceed 32 million members according to the suit.
Eglet’s filing claims, “Shortly after November 17, 2019, the PRC (People’s Republic of China) and the other Defendants knew, or should have known, that COVID-19 was a ‘new’ dangerous, contagious, and deadly virus because many Chinese citizens who contracted the virus were getting very sick, and some were dying. Moreover, DNA samples taken from these very sick and dying people confirmed that this was a ‘new’ virus for which there was no vaccine or cure.”
In his book For a New Liberty, Murray Rothbard, foresaw that lawsuits like this would take place in a libertarin world. Rothbard explained,
yet while we live in a state of “international anarchy” there is little or no problem in disputes between private citizens of two countries. Suppose that right now, for example, a citizen of Uruguay claims that he has been swindled by a citizen of Argentina. Which court does he go to? He goes to his own, i.e., the victim’s or the plaintiff’s court. The case proceeds in the Uruguayan court, and its decision is honored by the Argentinian court.
Of course we don’t live in a libertarian world and the PRC is not a private citizen. The Chinese embassy responded that China had shared information in an “open, transparent and responsible manner.” The Chinese spokesperson told The Nevada Independent, ”Regarding the case you mentioned in Nevada State, we have not got any relevant documents from plaintiffs. We want to point out that those allegations are based on rumors and totally unfounded. This case is definitely a malicious and frivolous lawsuit.”
Attorney Eglet begs to differ and says “This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this class action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) and 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). The matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000; there exists minimal diversity between parties...”
On December 27, 2019, Dr. Zhang Jixian sounded the alarm when 180 patients were infected. Dr. Yixian's warnings were suppressed. The “Hubei Health Commission ordered one of the genomics companies to stop testing on the new virus and to destroy all the data. Simultaneously, the Defendants pressured the press not to report these facts,” the suit claims. The World Health Organization wasn’t informed until December 31st.
While the Wuhan seafood market was closed ostensibly to disinfect the area, “governmental authorities intentionally failed to have doctors inspect the area and failed to swab individual animal cages or to draw blood from the workers in order to determine the ‘real source of the virus,” the suit asserts.
Doctors who spoke out were condemned and censored. In January, the Chinese authorities claimed the virus was “under control” and a “mild condition.” The suit states, “According to scientists almost 99% of the world’s infections could have been avoided if the Defendants had acted properly in early December, 2019.”
By the time Wuhan was shut down at the end of January, 5 million residents had left, spreading the coronavirus worldwide. In February, Chinese journalists reporting on the virus mysteriously disappeared and authorities suppressed internet accounts. In March, reporters from The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post were told to leave the country.
Chinese Billionaire Guo Wengui is quoted as stating that 1,200 bodies a day were being cremated and he doubts the government’s claim that there are no new cases.
Eglet’s suit includes this juicy allegation,
It is reported that there are only two known Chinese government bio-weapon research labs in the PRC and one of them the National Biosafety Laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology is located in Wuhan, and is close in proximity to the Human Seafood Wholesale Market, where COVID-19 allegedly originated. This lab is considered China’s only “level 4” microbiology lab – meaning it deals with the deadliest viruses. A plausible alternative theory is that COVID-19 escaped from the Wuhan lab because of lax controls, or that Chinese researchers sold lab animals to the marketplace in question, something researchers have been known to do in China, instead of cremating them as PRC law requires.
Eglet in his suit, alleges negligence, that the PRC had a duty to “not act negligently in their management and handling of the COVID-19 outbreak, so that COVID-19 would not unreasonably spread as it did to the United States, including the States of Nevada and Illinois.”
In count two, “Strict Liability for conducting ultrahazardous activity” is alleged. “Clearly, Defendants knew or should have known about containment issues within their microbiology labs, such as the ones operating in Wuhan, and those labs handling viruses such as COVID-19.”
Count three alleges public nuisance. The PRC and other defendants, “had a duty to the public at large, including Named Plaintiffs and members of the class, not to use the property where the Wuhan Institute of Virology is located, and/or create a condition that harms public health.”
“Without justice,” Rothbard concluded, “the state is nothing but a band of robbers.” And, if Eglet’s case is made, murderers as well.
