Connect with us


Not in the clear over mask stupidity: North Carolina juror arrested for refusing to wear mask despite no mandate in place



Mask Mandate

We are not out of the ‘follow the science’ pandemic woods just yet. A man in North Carolina was arrested for not wearing a mask. Gregory Hahn reported for jury duty last week and wound up in prison after he refused to put a mask on in court, despite there being no local mask mandates in place.

“I never thought I would show up to jury duty and end up behind bars,” Gregory Hahn told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight.

Not only were there no mandates in place, but Hahn told WRAL there were signs in the courthouse saying no masks were required and that he and 98 other jury candidates “all walked in.”

Apparently one specific judge made the requirement for his personal courtrooms. Clerk of superior court Renee Whittenton told WRAL that Harnett County court judge Charles Gilchrist is the only one that requires a mask.

“You can go in any district courtroom without a mask, you can come into superior clerk court without a mask and the [district attorney’s] office without a mask, but with Judge Gilchrist he has a mandate that you must wear a mask,” Whittenton said.

National Review reported that Whittenton gave the outlet a written statement saying each juror had been told about Gilchrist’s mask requirement at check-in and that each juror was given a mask to wear.

Hahn refused Gilchrist’s order to wear a face covering, and despite not breaking any local masking laws, the judge had him arrested and sent to jail for contempt of court.

“It was the worst 24 hours of my life. I was refused to make a phone call to my minor child who is home,” said Hahn, a U.S. Navy veteran and single father.

He said he asked Gilchrist to excuse him since it was just one day in jail but the judge allegedly replied: “I could, but I’m not going to.”

Hahn said that the “irony of all this is the judge was talking to me without a mask.”

“If safety was such a concern, I go to jail, no mask requirements with inmates,” he said.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Internal docs show Amazon censored books on vaccinations due to pressure from Biden White House




Recently released internal Amazon emails reveal the company caved to pressure from the Biden White House to suppress available vaccine information.

Provided to the House Judiciary Committee, the emails light on the extent of the Biden White House’s influence over the retail giant regarding vaccine-related content. The emails disclose a concerning narrative of pressure from government officials to suppress information deemed unfavorable to their agenda.

Republican Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio took to Twitter to disclose the findings, stating that the emails reveal direct pressure from the White House on Amazon to censor books expressing views contrary to those endorsed by the administration. One email, albeit redacted, explicitly poses the question of whether the administration requested the removal of certain books, to which the answer was affirmative.

National Review highlights the successful efforts of the Biden administration in persuading Amazon to limit the visibility of titles skeptical of vaccine efficacy. White House senior adviser for Covid-19 response, Andrew Slavitt, expressed concerns about Amazon’s role in propagating what he termed as “misinformation” regarding vaccines. His emails illustrate a push for action to address what he perceived as a proliferation of dissenting views.

In response to Slavitt’s inquiries, Amazon initially hesitated to take overt action, fearing backlash from conservative media outlets. The company’s internal deliberations reflect a concern for public perception and the potential amplification of the issue if intervention were too conspicuous.

Despite initially refraining from manual intervention, Amazon eventually succumbed to pressure, engaging in discussions with White House officials. The company’s internal documents reveal deliberations on whether the administration sought outright book bans or alterations to search results. Amazon’s stance, as expressed in their meeting with the White House, emphasized the provision of diverse viewpoints and the distinction between online retail and social media platforms.



Continue Reading