Richardson ‘No Longer Associated With Group’

May 13, 2021

Charles Richardson has said that “he is no longer associated with Crowdfunding website for the purpose of making a constitutional challenge to the proposed quarantine restrictions” and said anyone who pledged funds as a result of his involvement “should take steps to rescind your donation.”

The online fund has, as of this writing, raised £19,610 [$27,535] from 117 pledges, with the page claiming that “we hold the view that the Government’s existing and impending Covid-19 regulations have gone a step too far; the Government’s restrictions and regulations are oppressive and trample on our constitutional rights.”

In a post on social media, Mr Richardson said, “To everyone that may have donated to the Crowdfunding website for the purpose of making a constitutional challenge to the proposed quarantine restrictions: Please be advised that I am no longer associated with that group or that fund. If you pledged funds as a result of my involvement you should take steps to rescind your donation.”

The well known local lawyer added, “I am a legal technician. And I will not advance or support assertions which are not realistic or supportable. There is an issue here to be taken. But it does not include wild conspiracy theories or fanciful allegations. I will advance and be associated with any claim that fundamental rights may be infringed. But I will not ethically advance a purely political agenda which is unsupported by science or law. I am a lawyer. I am not a lighting rod for zealots.”

The statement we received in reference to the plans for a legal challenge said that Courtenay Griffiths QC, a UK based lawyer who works for 25 Bedford Row in the UK, would also be on the case. We have corresponded with 25 Bedford Row previously, and have reached out seeking comment, and will update as able.

Update May 14, 12.08pm: Chancery Legal has confirmed that Mark Pettingill — a former Attorney-General– “has been instructed to take over the local representation for the group Constitutional Freedom Bermuda, the group who is challenging the Government’s Covid-l9 regulations. Counsel is still instructed by Courtenay Griffiths QC and will be assisted by Eron S.L Hill.”

The statement said, “We are committed to representing our clients without fear or favour and irrespective of political affiliation; this matter has nothing to do politics or conspiracies, this is about constitutional freedoms. The Constitution guarantees fundamental rights, liberties, and freedoms that all Bermudians are entitled.

“Our clients hold the view that the regulations are discriminatory and have gone a step too far and our team at Chancery looks forward to working with Mr. Griffiths QC to advocate our clients’ case before the Courts. Our clients are immensely grateful for the enormous support they’ve received both locally and across the globe in respect of their pursuit of constitutional justice for all.”

covid-19 divider 1

You can find more information on the links below and also on our dedicated website, which is the most comprehensive resource and historic record available of Bermuda’s handling of the pandemic.

Read More About

Category: All, News

Comments (16)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Unbelievable says:

    Pfft…even the lawyer wants nothing to do with these crazy people.

    • LOL - the real one says:

      The United Nations says that everyone has a fundamental right to travel. Why are you against this fundamental right?

      Article 13 of the United Nations’ 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states the following: “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”

      • sandgrownan says:

        Well done for using Google effectively, however, what you and others conveniently forget (or even deliberately leave out) is that Governments have the ability to restrict movement in certain circumstances – public health crisis are a prime example. THere’s precedent for that and for forced vaccination programs.

        So it’s a little disingenuous to quote the UN, what you should be doing is asking yourself if you believe it’s a global public health crisis or not.

        Richardson knows it would be laughed out of court.

        • Dope says:

          How exactly do people who don’t have covid pose a risk to public health?

          • Sandgrownan says:

            There’s a TV show called the news…. You should watch it some time

      • smarty pants says:

        Do they have a clause for pandemics?

      • J Starling says:

        And related treaties qualify that with public health actions. You can travel, but you have to abide by certain public health actions, which is why some countries require proof of vaccination for this or that disease, and why countries can put in place quarantine measures too.

      • Stephanie says:

        The United Nations also states the right to health – someone’s right to travel does not supersede someone’s right to LIFE.

        Restrictions on travel are not the same as being banned from travel. Are you also opposed to the existence of passports?

      • enough says:

        No one is saying you can’t travel, you can travel all you wish but acknowledge the fact there are restrictions in place not only here in Bermuda but all over the world. I personally know of someone who wanted to travel and got stuck outside of Bermuda because of thee rules of another country and guess what they had to fund their accommodations themselves until they got themselves sorted out and had the proper paper work in place. Believe me you are going to find much stricter rules and regulations in place in other locations when you decide to travel. Have fun.

      • Laura says:

        It may be a human right to travel, but it is not probably not a human right to travel without testing, or quarantine.

      • Unbelievable says:

        @LOL – It seems everyone has given you some quite good rebuttals. I don’t have to. Now go get vaccinated so that when the time comes, you have the ability to travel.

      • Lol says:

        You have a right to leave and country including his own lolol. Tell that to American Immigration when they denied my cousin for getting caught with a little weed. Charles is a lawyer ask him get my friends off the stop list. Let’s see if Biden listens to Charles. Mark will lose his case and still get his paycheck from you fools.

  2. Red Pill says:

    They got to him. It’s a shame.

  3. Check Yourself... says:

    I was afraid of this. The issue to be contested is related to the forced supervised quarantine at the cost of the unvaccinated person despite them possibly having a place where they can safely quarantine themselves (“There is an issue to be taken”).

    No one is being withheld from traveling.
    No one is being denied entry to their home country per say.

    We are all under emergency laws designed to “get this virus under control and save lives” however the impending discrimination against “healthy” unvaccinated persons is a problem and so it should be to any person living in the so called free world.

    Allow me to ask some questions:

    1. At what point did we allow the Gov. to tell us how we should live and not only that, what is best for us? Recommend possibly but dictate no!

    2. Why would we allow the Gov. to essentially lock us up at our cost even though we test negative for a virus that we may or may never catch and may or may not ever even get sick much less die from should we possibly catch it? Does our justice/values system work like this?

    3. Do we assume that unvaccinated persons are evil? Are inherently sick? Are a danger to “vaccinated persons”?

    4. Why does the vaccinated person fear or try to shame the unvaccinated person? (may be hard one to look in the mirror and answer this one)

    5. Have you yourself ever followed and or read any of the COVID info found on the WHO or CDC sites? If so, please show me the data and or science behind the global fear of COVID for all of the population? Rushed vaccination for the very sick and elderly persons 50 and over I can see the case for but everyone else?

    The truth is that we do not have enough data to back any of the ever changing policies and ever increasing rushed vaccination push from BIG pharma to justify it!

    Having said that, as individuals we should be able to make our own informed decisions and act accordingly. We should not be bullied into vaccination based on others irrational fears and or mandates! We should not be discriminated against based on these same fears and mandates! If you chose to get vaccinated at this point then so be it. Love thy neighbor and live your life! Your safe right?

    Once the vaccines are fully tested and ethically approved, many more may be more inclined to get it if there is still the need. Only time will tell.

    If you have or are an elderly or at risk loved one then by all means take precautions (vaccination, isolation, whatever) but do not place that burden all others who are just trying to live their best life. We are all just trying to live our best lives.

    Be blessed Bermuda!

    • sandgrownan says:

      Do you really need a civics lesson?

      But, ultimately you fail. Hidden in there is the slight reference “big-pharma conspiracy” and as a result your entire argument is devalued.

      So, 8/10 for effort, but 2/10 for execution.

      Try harder next time.

    • What? says:

      Let me tackle this:

      1) We do this every day, in almost all aspects of your life. The government tells you how fast you can drive, that your child needs to be educated, that you need to pay taxes, that you can’t drive without passing a test. The list is innumerable. So, we started at the dawn of civilization.

      2) You are not “locked up”. You are isolated. You are isolated because you have an extremely high chance of contracting the virus while unvaccinated and traveling. Every person who is infected gives the virus more time to mutate and become more lethal, more infectious, and possibly evade the current vaccines with a mutation. If that happens if you contract the virus and you are isolated until your body is able to destroy it, then it did not spread to the wider public. You forget that people who are infected and survive do not just walk away unscathed. There is overwhelming amount of data, which shows people have long term pulmonary, and respiratory damage. Think people who caught Polio…they survived but with life-long irreversible damage. 2a) Yes, that is literally exactly how our justice and values system works.
      3) We do not assume you are evil. We do not assume you are inherently sick. Yes, you are a danger to vaccinated persons (see mutation of the virus that causes my immunity to no longer exist).
      4) We do not fear you for our own immediate safety. I fear you will infect my mother or my child who cannot be vaccinated. I fear (again) that you may be host to a viral variant that prolongs the pandemic for everyone. I do shame you (often not directly) because you actions are inherently selfish and, not only that, but also has zero basis in reality. The irony of asking vaccinated people to “look in the mirror” is probably lost on you. You are doing a shameful, selfish, and uneducated thing if you are able to get the vaccine and choose not to. The shame I give you is justified and, hopefully, corrective.
      5) Yes, I have read both the W.H.O. and C.D.C. guidelines and websites. The evidence is actually attached to the website, so if you cannot find it, you have probably not actually read the guidelines yourself. There have been millions of people vaccinated. More than any other drug trial in history. Even vaccine trials which have gone on for years would still have less participants, so the idea that this is a “untested” or “rushed” vaccine “trial” means you are unable to distinguish with trials happening sequentially and congruently. You completely ignore that dozens of bio-tech firms have been working on new vaccines after the SARS outbreak several years ago. They didn’t have to start from the beginning just because it was a novel virus, they were already years down the line of development and just needed to change specific elements (which still took about a year). Also, there has never been, in the over 200 year history of using vaccines, ever been a side-effect which did not occur between 6-9 weeks after the injection. If “something” (which I’ve never actually heard a specific idea of what this would be) was going to happen, we would already have seen it happen.
      I hope that clears things up.

      Go get vaccinated.