Letter to City of Sarasota, FL re. Rescinding Mask Mandates by Kathleen Sheridan

By Kathleen Sherican

The Honorable Hagen Brody

1565 1st Street Room 101

Sarasota, FL 34236

Dear Mayor Brody,

I learned of the recent decision by the City of Sarasota to rescind its mask “mandate”. I called your office this morning and spoke to “Cathy” (Sp?) to express my support and appreciation for this. I thought I would follow up on that call to express my gratitude and appreciation in writing. I also appreciate the ease with which I could find your information; the City’s website is very well-designed.

Cathy did confirm what I knew about this decision—that it resulted in part from the realization that Governor DeSantis’s Executive Order (EO) banning such “mandates” made the Sarasota City “mandate” essentially unenforceable. The exact reasons for Governor DeSantis’s EO on this subject I do not know, but I do know that he was right to issue it. And you were right to act as you did. As more and more evidence piles up regarding the inefficacy* of these medical devices (defined as such by the FDA) to provide substantive health benefits or prevent infection, perhaps that influenced your decision, too?

As I’m sure you know, the FDA issued specific guidelines as a result of the CDC’s recommendation that the public—including healthy individuals—take on the mask. These guidelines include very specific instructions as to labeling:  “…the labeling must not state or imply that the product is intended for antimicrobial or antiviral protection or related uses or is for use such as infection prevention or reduction…”

Manufacturers of these devices received further assurances from the FDA that compliance with the guidelines provides the following protections:  “A byproduct of FDA’s designation of face masks as medical devices covered by FDA’s Letter of Authorization is that face mask manufacturers now may qualify for liability immunity under a declaration by HHS.[11] Under this declaration, manufacturers of “Covered Countermeasures” are immune from liability for all claims “under Federal and State law . . . for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or use by an individual of a covered countermeasure.” In summary:  “Manufacturers, make sure your labels make people aware that these medical devices don’t work. As long as you do that you can rest assured that you folks are good…immune from liability.”

Now, isn’t that handy?

Meanwhile, evidence of the detrimental health impacts* of these liability-free medical devices continues to build. This article discusses increased rates of bacterial pneumonia resulting from mask wearing, highlighting a lawsuit filed against Tulsa, OK Mayor GT Bynum for his mask “mandate”. I have also provided at the end of this note another handful of the many available resources providing evidence for the very serious downsides to mask wearing. Yet despite this and the official information above, debate and enforcement continue as does harassment of businesses and individuals under these “mandates”—often by people one could only describe as consumed by fear…and sanctimony.

What is not debatable is the unconstitutionality and violations of federal law (not to mention the Nuremberg Code) represented by these mask “mandates”. We know that no governor, public health director, mayor, school superintendent, or town manager can impose a medical intervention on anyone, much less the entire public. Further, no health order, no state of emergency, no State law, no city ordinance or store policy may suspend or violate the Constitution. Period. U.S. Title 42, Section 12101, for example, prohibits businesses legally defined as “places of public accommodation” from discriminating against anyone for their disability. It is also illegal to prohibit entry to someone for their perceived medical condition—such as the presumption of illness and disease extant in every single person thanks to erroneous and eye-watering misinformation about “asymptomatic spread”. Despite Anthony Fauci’s clear statement to the contrary made on Jan 28, 2020, this damaging myth continues. (The hyperlink goes to a YouTube video timestamped for Dr. Fauci’s remarks.)

Further, all places of public accommodation (even private businesses) extend an irrevocable privilege to the public to enter their establishments. No law—much less a “mandate”—can sanction the denial of entry and the full enjoyment and equal access to facilities, services, and accommodations to any member of the public based on race, religion, disability, perceived medical condition or other protected characteristics. Therefore, any fines or arrests for trespass that stem from individuals’ right to leave their faces bare—or stated differently—to decline a medical intervention—are, as Governor DeSantis rightly stated, null and void.

I have also attached for you what I consider a remarkable piece of research on this subject by Denis Rancourt, PhD. This research lends additional credence to the New England Journal of Medicine’s assertion about these “tools”. They seem to play another role among doctors and nurses—and now a shocking proportion of the public—that of talisman.

I admire your courage, Mr. Mayor, and that of your colleagues for taking this step and I thank you for it.



Kathleen M Sheridan

P.S. Mr. Mayor, have you noticed that official sources, including and especially Dr. Fauci’s NIH, offer no treatment or encouragement? Only an unapproved experimental gene therapy and directives that add to the fear and constrain the free movement and individual decision-making of the public? Funny that, yes?

* Cloth face coverings:

  • Will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.

*Surgical masks:

  • Will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.

*Dangers and downsides of wearing masks: