The legal precedent goes back to 1905 Jacobson v Massachusetts.
What should be challenged, however, is the fruit of the poison tree: these compulsory mandates are based on deception and collusion; they do not meet the public health principle argued in Jacobson.
• the EUA only possible by collusion to suppress alternative therapeutics and prophylactics
• mRNA gene therapy EUA only possible by collusion to regulate as traditional vaccines
• vaccine deceptively claimed effective by restricting the measure of effectiveness to the ‘presence antibodies by certain week post injection’; implying rather than establishing “immunity”
• the definition of “vaccine” was changed arbitrarily to fit mRNA effectiveness, not the other way around
• adverse events are unacceptably high — lack of action to halt distribution shows extreme bias on behalf of manufacturers over credible physician groups calling for pause to reevaluate product safety
• the very nature of Informed Consent is voluntary and requires transparency
• the products are still experimental and participation in medical experiments cannot be under coercion, threats, or intimidation
Actually, if I recall correctly, if I rob you of your Porsche, steal it from you or illegally take it, you will get it back when the court is finished with it as evidence because these are criminal acts. If I defraud you of your Porsche, because this is a civil matter, you must recover it through an action in tort. This is not legal advice, however because motor vehicle law and different jurisdictions.
That falls in line with what I remember; your vehicle was stolen, you weren’t defrauded of it. The court (and the court’s creature, the police) were finished with it as evidence and you got it back. It was a criminal procedure as with a robbery or a taking.
As I noted, motor vehicles (and real estate) are often treated differently from other kinds of property such as, for instance, cash or jewelry.
Good point. But there’s 115 yrs of legal precedent since Jacobson. So what’s the heavier lift right now? getting the SC to overturn the Jacobson ruling? (which half the population probably agree with) Or showing the Emperor has no clothes and bringing down the whole stinking fraud?
The legal precedent goes back to 1905 Jacobson v Massachusetts.
What should be challenged, however, is the fruit of the poison tree: these compulsory mandates are based on deception and collusion; they do not meet the public health principle argued in Jacobson.
• the EUA only possible by collusion to suppress alternative therapeutics and prophylactics
• mRNA gene therapy EUA only possible by collusion to regulate as traditional vaccines
• vaccine deceptively claimed effective by restricting the measure of effectiveness to the ‘presence antibodies by certain week post injection’; implying rather than establishing “immunity”
• the definition of “vaccine” was changed arbitrarily to fit mRNA effectiveness, not the other way around
• adverse events are unacceptably high — lack of action to halt distribution shows extreme bias on behalf of manufacturers over credible physician groups calling for pause to reevaluate product safety
• the very nature of Informed Consent is voluntary and requires transparency
• the products are still experimental and participation in medical experiments cannot be under coercion, threats, or intimidation
Facts
Actually, if I recall correctly, if I rob you of your Porsche, steal it from you or illegally take it, you will get it back when the court is finished with it as evidence because these are criminal acts. If I defraud you of your Porsche, because this is a civil matter, you must recover it through an action in tort. This is not legal advice, however because motor vehicle law and different jurisdictions.
That falls in line with what I remember; your vehicle was stolen, you weren’t defrauded of it. The court (and the court’s creature, the police) were finished with it as evidence and you got it back. It was a criminal procedure as with a robbery or a taking. As I noted, motor vehicles (and real estate) are often treated differently from other kinds of property such as, for instance, cash or jewelry.
Good point. But there’s 115 yrs of legal precedent since Jacobson. So what’s the heavier lift right now? getting the SC to overturn the Jacobson ruling? (which half the population probably agree with) Or showing the Emperor has no clothes and bringing down the whole stinking fraud?
https://townhall.com/columnists/jonathanemord/2021/09/10/bidens-vaccine-mandate-will-sink-in-a-legal-quagmire-n2595690
Emord is a lawyer who has successfully sued the FDA. Very good legal insight here.