I cannot express my absolute horror and anger about this. I'm no lawyer, but I see serious implications from a Board of Health-imposed mandate to take these death shots. They're only considering this due to the DOJ opinion -- not any real data or science!
Does anyone know: is there a legal defense, other than religious or medical exemptions?
[EDIT: Yes, I know about AFLDs, FCCC, etc. I'm really hoping for some arguments against their verbage here. Their whole argument seems to hinge off of the term "reasonable regulations". Is there a legal defense which states that what they are trying to impose is not, in fact, reasonable under the law?]
Your thoughts as to the question whether it is "reasonable regulations" may be a credible way to legally challenge the vaxx. Who gets to decide what is a "reasonable regulation". It cannot be the DOJ, but a Judge.
I'm beginning to believe the 1905 SCOTUS decision: Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the case the vaXXers love to reference is the same as Roes v. Wade decision. Both these decisions were rife with toxic legal inputs that outputted a toxic decision.
Attorney Jonathan Emord looks at the history of compulsory vaccination, and shows how it was the Chief Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who stripped away 14th Amendment rights in regards to compulsory vaccination, the very same judge who ruled in favor of forced sterilization which was supported by the “science” of that day, eugenics. Eugenics is the same “science” used by the Nazis in Germany to endorse eliminating “feeble-minded” people in favor of a “master race.”
We see comparably repulsive favoritism for ending the lives of others with whom he harbored disdain in a decision by Holmes holding forced sterilization constitutional under the 14th Amendment, the infamous 1927 decision of Buck v. Bell. In that decision, Holmes wrote that it was within the rightful power of the state to:
“prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.” He crudely added, “the principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
People ought to attack Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. as a racist and bigot, who believed in Nazi style eugenics. In other words, attack the man who gave us Jacobson v. Massachusetts and allowed our predicament today fighting compulsory vaccination.
Quote from C.S. Lewis:
“I dread government in the name of science. That is how tyrannies come in.”
Please excuse the long post, but I want to share a few highlights from quickly looking through both the NSHE (Nevada System of Higher Education) arguments and the Right to Refuse Memorandum of Law posted here on GAW a few hours ago:
NSHE:
They are trying to argue that, due to DOJ opinion, they only need to inform employees and students of their right to accept or refuse injection, not that they can't mandate them. This is asinine, but they're actually considering this as their legal argument. They do not mention, as far as I can find, the legal right to refuse as allowed in Nevada due to Religious or Medical reasons.
From what I can gather, they argue that EUA-status doesn't matter, because of the DOJ opinion. I would hate to assume, but I suspect their legal defense against any EUA defense will lean toward this ridiculous argument.
Right to Refuse:
This lists legal defenses most of which surround EUA and what the law can and cannot reasonably do under those EUA guidelines. NSHE is trying to undermine that with the DOJ opinion defense. As though, somehow, informing people about their right to refuse is somehow different then allowing them to actually refuse. Baffling.
The one area I can find something immediately useful against such vile misinterpretation of the law is Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970, which states that an employee who refuses vaccination because of a reasonable belief that he or she has a medical condition that creates a real danger of serious illness or death may be protected (from retaliation). I can do that -- and I think many of us can. This defense isn't perfect, though.
Finally: What I've found is just a start, but I hope others have a chance to review their own State's System of Education for this kind of crazy, medical overreach. Have you formed a legal defense? If so, what did you use? How did you peel away their defense? What verbage worked best?
The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights.
Doj opinion carries less weight than mine. DOJ does not create laws.
20 gauge just posted a letter from a JD stating the legal case for why employers can't mandate. I'll see if I can find the thread.
Please do. Let me know. I'd like to utillize this.
There you go,
https://greatawakening.win/p/12jd9a7QyT/right-to-refuse-vaxx--memorandum/c/
I cannot express my absolute horror and anger about this. I'm no lawyer, but I see serious implications from a Board of Health-imposed mandate to take these death shots. They're only considering this due to the DOJ opinion -- not any real data or science!
Does anyone know: is there a legal defense, other than religious or medical exemptions?
[EDIT: Yes, I know about AFLDs, FCCC, etc. I'm really hoping for some arguments against their verbage here. Their whole argument seems to hinge off of the term "reasonable regulations". Is there a legal defense which states that what they are trying to impose is not, in fact, reasonable under the law?]
Your thoughts as to the question whether it is "reasonable regulations" may be a credible way to legally challenge the vaxx. Who gets to decide what is a "reasonable regulation". It cannot be the DOJ, but a Judge.
I'm beginning to believe the 1905 SCOTUS decision: Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the case the vaXXers love to reference is the same as Roes v. Wade decision. Both these decisions were rife with toxic legal inputs that outputted a toxic decision.
Attorney Jonathan Emord looks at the history of compulsory vaccination, and shows how it was the Chief Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who stripped away 14th Amendment rights in regards to compulsory vaccination, the very same judge who ruled in favor of forced sterilization which was supported by the “science” of that day, eugenics. Eugenics is the same “science” used by the Nazis in Germany to endorse eliminating “feeble-minded” people in favor of a “master race.”
We see comparably repulsive favoritism for ending the lives of others with whom he harbored disdain in a decision by Holmes holding forced sterilization constitutional under the 14th Amendment, the infamous 1927 decision of Buck v. Bell. In that decision, Holmes wrote that it was within the rightful power of the state to:
People ought to attack Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. as a racist and bigot, who believed in Nazi style eugenics. In other words, attack the man who gave us Jacobson v. Massachusetts and allowed our predicament today fighting compulsory vaccination.
Quote from C.S. Lewis:
Thank you for this! I really appreciate it.
Posted here within the last hour. https://krisannehall.com/index.php/resources/articles/718-right-to-refuse-memorandum-of-law
https://greatawakening.win/p/12jd9a7QyT/right-to-refuse-vaxx--memorandum/c/
Did not see this! Thank you!
https://greatawakening.win/p/12jd9a7QyT/right-to-refuse-vaxx--memorandum/c/
Did not see this before! Thank you!
Please excuse the long post, but I want to share a few highlights from quickly looking through both the NSHE (Nevada System of Higher Education) arguments and the Right to Refuse Memorandum of Law posted here on GAW a few hours ago:
NSHE: They are trying to argue that, due to DOJ opinion, they only need to inform employees and students of their right to accept or refuse injection, not that they can't mandate them. This is asinine, but they're actually considering this as their legal argument. They do not mention, as far as I can find, the legal right to refuse as allowed in Nevada due to Religious or Medical reasons.
From what I can gather, they argue that EUA-status doesn't matter, because of the DOJ opinion. I would hate to assume, but I suspect their legal defense against any EUA defense will lean toward this ridiculous argument.
Right to Refuse: This lists legal defenses most of which surround EUA and what the law can and cannot reasonably do under those EUA guidelines. NSHE is trying to undermine that with the DOJ opinion defense. As though, somehow, informing people about their right to refuse is somehow different then allowing them to actually refuse. Baffling.
The one area I can find something immediately useful against such vile misinterpretation of the law is Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970, which states that an employee who refuses vaccination because of a reasonable belief that he or she has a medical condition that creates a real danger of serious illness or death may be protected (from retaliation). I can do that -- and I think many of us can. This defense isn't perfect, though.
Finally: What I've found is just a start, but I hope others have a chance to review their own State's System of Education for this kind of crazy, medical overreach. Have you formed a legal defense? If so, what did you use? How did you peel away their defense? What verbage worked best?