HOLLAND MI (WHTC-AM/FM) – Marlena Pavlos has a chance to defend the license for her restaurant, Marlena’s Bistro & Pizzeria, 909 Lincoln Ave. in Holland, on Monday, Feb. 1, 2021. She’s kept the restaurant open for dine-in service, despite a statewide ban. The restaurant has been in business for more than five years.
In December, Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) issued a notice of license revocation to Zante, Inc., Marlena’s Bistro & Pizzeria’s parent company, which also belongs to Pavlos.
State health officials barred dine-in service intermittently since the pandemic started last March, with the most-recent order from Jan. 16 through 31 in an effort to reverse a surge in COVID-19, attributed to Christmas and New Year’s gatherings.
Pavlos has consistently refused to follow the rules, resulting in a revocation order filed by the State of Michigan, which noted that Allegan County health officials have repeatedly found Pavlos’s eatery offering indoor dining during bans, without requiring facial coverings or social distancing.
Pavlos renewed her restaurant’s license from the state last April.
At 9:00 a.m. Monday, she’s scheduled to appear via Zoom before the Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules hearing on the summary license suspension.
Reached by WHTC Friday, Pavlos indicated she believes its her Constitutional right to operate the restaurant despite county and state orders to stop.
“That’s my constitutional right and everyone of us, citizens, have the same equal rights,” she said in a brief phone interview. “And I will stand up for my Constitutional rights. I will fight and I will die. I will do what is right. ”
She added that will be her only comment on the issue. Pavlos immigrated to the U.S. more than 30 years ago, becoming a citizen in 1992, according to a Holland Sentinel report. She operated The Salad Bowl restaurant in the same location as her current shop, but sold The Salad Bowl in 2012. Marlena’s Bistro has been open for more than five years.
Over the last several days, the parking lot at the restaurant has been packed, except on Mondays, when the Marlena’s is closed.
While her restaurant is drawing patrons, some as far away as Illinois, not everyone is happy with Pavlos’ resistance to the rules. They’re making their feelings known on the restaurant’s Facebook page.
“Why do you think you’re more important than any other business. And why do you think you can blatantly disregard any rules,” wrote Bev Jacobs. “Your license to prepare food suspended and you still continue. And then encouraging others to get behind your recklessness! Appaling [sic] and shameful behavior!”
Angela Spencer added, “If your food license is suspended why are you opening? If you are suppose to be shut down then you need to shut down. I know it’s a struggle right now but nothing good will happen if stuff like this keeps happening.”
Arnie Cisneros wrote, “Can’t wait for you to be closed down.”
Pavlos, like many Americans, has accepted some false information as being accurate. On the restaurant’s Facebook page, and on the doors to her eatery, she has posted notices suggesting a legal basis for refusing to wear facemasks.
“I am exempt from wearing a facemask pursuant to EO 2020-70 S15a and S16 pursuant to 42 USC 2981 1982, 1985, 1988, 200a, 12182, 12202, 12203, 12188, 12205; MCL 37.2101 et seq.; MCL 37.1102 et seq, US Const. AM1, V, XIV and/or Const. 1963, art 1, Sections 2, 3, 17, discrimination against me is illegal and punishable by criminal penalties, monetary damages, civil penalties, and/or attorney fee awards.”
While such documents cite sections of state or U.S. laws, they are not considered legally binding in anyway.
Here’s what each of those codes mean — links included for deatils:
EO 2020-70, Sections 15 and 16:
“Rules governing face coverings.
Any individual able to medically tolerate a face covering must wear a covering over his or her nose and mouth—such as a homemade mask, scarf, bandana, or handkerchief—when in any enclosed public space.
All businesses and operations whose workers perform in-person work must, at a minimum, provide non-medical grade face coverings to their workers.
Supplies of N95 masks and surgical masks should generally be reserved, for now, for health care professionals, first responders (e.g., police officers, fire fighters, paramedics), and other critical workers who interact with the public.
The protections against discrimination in the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, 1976 PA 453, as amended, MCL 37.2101 et seq., and any other protections against discrimination in Michigan law, apply in full force to individuals who wear a face covering under this order.
Nothing in this order should be taken to supersede another executive order or directive that is in effect, except to the extent this order imposes more stringent limitations on in-person work, activities, and interactions. Consistent with prior guidance, neither a place of religious worship nor its owner is subject to penalty under section 20 of this order for allowing religious worship at such place. No individual is subject to penalty under section 20 of this order for violating section 15(a) of this order.”
42 USC 2981 1982, 1985, 1988, 200a, 12182, 12202, 12203, 12188, 12205 — it’s unclear what, exactly this would be applied, but:
1982 references non-discrimination of rights related to federal funding for housing;
1985 appears to relate to conspiracy to interfere with civil rights;
1988 appears to related to religious freedom and attorney fees; 200a appears to relate to employee pension plans;
12182 states no person with disabilities will be denied “goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.”;
12202 requires equal opportunity for people with disabilities; 12205 appears to relate to attorney fees;
12203 prohibits retaliation against or coercion of an individual who “made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing.”;
12188 discusses penalties for someone who has subjected another “to discrimination on the basis of disability”;
12205 discusses a court’s discretion in assigning attorney fees for the prevailing party in a court case.
MCL 37.1201 simply states, “This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Elliott-Larsen civil rights act”.
Section 37.1101 states “This act shall be known and may be cited as the “persons with disabilities civil rights act”.”
US Const. AM1, V, XIV cites the following three sections of the Bill of Rights:
First Amendment
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Fifth Amendment
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
14th Amendment
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Const. 1963, art 1, Sections 2, 3, 17 (Michigan’s Constitution)
Section 2
“No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of his civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, race, color or national origin. The legislature shall implement this section by appropriate legislation.”
Section 3
“The people have the right peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, to instruct their representatives and to petition the government for redress of grievances.”
Section 17
“No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. The right of all individuals, firms, corporations and voluntary associations to fair and just treatment in the course of legislative and executive investigations and hearings shall not be infringed.”
You ROCK Marlena!
It took an immigrant like you to stand against this Tyranny, and I stand with you 100%. Peace be with you.
A couple of problems for the state and county.
1. The imminent threat argument. This clause allows an inspector to shut down a business if there were enough violations in a typical inspection that the business would pose an immediate risk to public health. Typically if there was a violation or two the business would to be allowed to implement corrective actions. Even if there was another failure, there would be another probationary period. In other words, the IT argument is within the context of a restaurant having numerous violations of ADOPTED health codes, not violating some blanket edit from bureaucrats from Lansing, Allegan, or Holland. Marlena’s has not violated an adopted code and therefore the IT clause doesn’t apply.
2. Innocent until proven guilty. When inspections are performed, the inspector must demonstrate or show evidence of violations of health codes. The current argument is that Marlena’s is an imminent threat in regard to Covid 19, but what is the evidence? She doesn’t need to prove anything. The ACHD needs to prove that she IS the source of Covid outbreaks. That would require contact tracing every customer walking through the door and demonstrating a rise in CV cases from her venue. Good luck.
As to the face mask argument, she stands on firm legal ground. There is no law or health code which forces people to wear masks. Again, this is only bureaucratic wishful thinking. Even Gov. Whitmer admits as much when on Nov. 5, 2020 she begged the MI legislature to enact a mask law(Google: Whitmer asks mask law). Whitmer knows that the mask mandate is illegal. Everyone has a right to self-health and Marlena’s honors that.