gassy, nobody is judging anybody here so no worries:) we are trying to figure out if the government thinks people who have been vaccinated are transhuman and no longer have rights per this video. so far its still up in the air after reading all the comments so far.
I don’t think many people on here would argue that they’re not human. But I would strongly caution that this argument may be used by the government to dehumanize people in the future. If the last 3 years has taught us anything, it’s that they would stoop to any low to fulfill their sick agenda.
The question is whether the "luciferase" or other ingredients specifically targeted the parts of the "image of God" that make us distinctly human. If you take a regular image and augment the nose, it might still be a recognizable image w augmented nose. Augment the nose and eyes, maybe no longer recognizable, etc. Eventually if you mess with it enough it is no longer the image it was created to represent, and the vax might have done that deliberately. I will not risk it
The link to the decision in the article is incomplete but the actual decision does not have the language cited by this guy. The word transhuman for example, is nowhere.
Just as a friendly reminder, anything that comes after the ? in those URLs is a tracking code & can be traced. Very few (relatively speaking) are aware of this.
I added this to my original reply but thought it should have its own reply - I was able to find the opinions page for the court case in the wayback machine, it does seem to have been deleted elsewhere. I searched phrases that this man is speaking ('are products') and not finding what he is saying:
If You Have Been Vaxed You Are Now Owned
And Have No More Access To HUMAN RIGHTS
Supreme Court 2013 - Pathology vs Myriad Genetics
The Vaxed Can Be Patented (Owned)
Summary From The Net
7-11-21
In a Supreme Court case decision in 2013 - Pathology vs Myriad Genetics, Inc - the United States Supreme Court ruled that you cannot patent human DNA as it is 'a product of nature'. However, at the end of the ruling, the Supreme Court wrote that if you were to change a human's genome by mRNA vaccines (being used currently) then the (altered) genome CAN be patented.
This means that everyone who has had the 'vaccine' is now technically 'patented'. Anything that is patented is 'owned' and comes under the definition of 'trans human'.
All people who are legally identified as being 'trans human' do not have access to Human Rights or any Rights granted by the State. That is because they are not classified as anything 100% organic or human.
Therefore, technically, anyone having this 'vaccine' can no longer have any access to Human Rights. There have been a few legal papers discussing this recently, so there should be clarification on this soon. As of now, the high court ruling stands.
Full Supreme Court Ruling
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf [Note: the link goes to Error notice]
While potentially correct (it was not a firm positive, but a maybe/probably), that still applies to the altered portions of the genome, as IP, not necessarily the actual people involved. IoW, it's likely that such patenting would just mean that Moderna, or whomever, could use DNA sequencing to prove that a competitor violated their patent with Treatment X.
For another analogy, patents on how your fancy new car's electronic stability control works doesn't make the car not yours. It just makes that particular combination of sensors, actuators, software behaviors, etc. not yours to commercially reproduce and sell.
Now, even if it did get ruled that natural vs unnatural DNA alteration changed your personhood status in some legal way, you would still have had to have that change made with full knowledge and consent, at the time of, "treatment," for it to hold any weight. If done to you without knowledge and consent, or under duress, then it's no good, as a way to deny rights because of the consequences. Informed consent has already been blown out of the water, across many dimensions, plus there's the use of coercion, as it concerns the jabs. I think the only ones that would be affected by this is some crazy way would be designer babies - genetically altered from conception, or during gestation, with the parents' informed consent. Vax babies aught to fall under similar pretext as vaxxed parents.
Seems to have a link to the summary. I could see that altered DNA is patentable.
There was concern on these boards a while back about the potential for a Monsanto SCOTUS ruled precedent that would allow for all genetically modified organisms (in that case it was food) to be owned by Monsanto specifically because it had the DNA Monsanto designed. Hence wind sending modified pollen into a neighbors field now made the neighbors crop property of Monsanto & the neighbor lost everything because it wasn't his design genetically (I need to find the links, though that is what got many worried at the time that this mRNA shot could be used to enslave shot takers).
Still going back to read the first summary to see if I can figure out why so many have been worried that genetically modified individuals might be considered property (or a potential legal pathway for that).
edit 2- The author is a geneticist & discussing how (interestingly enough) they only found Monsanto was targeted by lawsuits instead of other competitors in GMOs.
I would need to dig into the court opinions/briefs myself to determine if there is any potential legal pathway for pharma/vaccine/Shot creators to own the "trans" humans that have been genetically modified. I still am not seeing it after looking over these articles, though I could be missing something by not digging deeper yet.
gassy, nobody is judging anybody here so no worries:) we are trying to figure out if the government thinks people who have been vaccinated are transhuman and no longer have rights per this video. so far its still up in the air after reading all the comments so far.
Lol good input anyway man. Dialed in fully or not it does help self check our orientation too. o7
I don’t think many people on here would argue that they’re not human. But I would strongly caution that this argument may be used by the government to dehumanize people in the future. If the last 3 years has taught us anything, it’s that they would stoop to any low to fulfill their sick agenda.
The question is whether the "luciferase" or other ingredients specifically targeted the parts of the "image of God" that make us distinctly human. If you take a regular image and augment the nose, it might still be a recognizable image w augmented nose. Augment the nose and eyes, maybe no longer recognizable, etc. Eventually if you mess with it enough it is no longer the image it was created to represent, and the vax might have done that deliberately. I will not risk it
The link the guy gives in the video goes to error on scotus website. Saving you some time.
they probably deleted it. he showed the document and read from it, take it for what its worth, thats why i posted it, to get opinions.
While driving I thought about checking the way back machine.
Fact checking = censorship
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2012/12-398_h3dj.pdf
This seems to address the same issue, may be the correct opinion.
Here's an article "fact checking" the decision.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-mrna-human/fact-check-2013-u-s-supreme-court-judgement-did-not-rule-that-people-inoculated-with-mrna-vaccines-are-no-longer-human-idUSL1N2UF1VK
The link to the decision in the article is incomplete but the actual decision does not have the language cited by this guy. The word transhuman for example, is nowhere.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-mrna-human/fact-check-2013-u-s-supreme-court-judgement-did-not-rule-that-people-inoculated-with-mrna-vaccines-are-no-longer-human-idUSL1N2UF1VK
I can find the case 12-398 1b7d but I cannot find the opinion. Will keep looking.
Transcript of court case argument: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2012/12-398_h3dj.pdf
UPDATE: opinions of the court for this case, I haven't read it yet: https://web.archive.org/web/20210701182721/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2gZBC0ZRg9m7CaJ1-Y36eJ2vgEeqiW2VqESnoVE8ETR3JuePvPkF3RiIY
https://web.archive.org/web/20210701182721/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf
Why you linking this to Facebook? Remove this part in the future to prevent that-
?fbclid=IwAR2gZBC0ZRg9m7CaJ1-Y36eJ2vgEeqiW2VqESnoVE8ETR3JuePvPkF3RiIY
just copied what was on wayback, the stuff after the ? was the source of the original request ... there were many there, I grabbed a random one.
I just reread what I wrote.
Please don't take my comment as an accusation you did that on purpose.
Just as a friendly reminder, anything that comes after the ? in those URLs is a tracking code & can be traced. Very few (relatively speaking) are aware of this.
Fact checking = censorship
that's why you gotta keep digging! never trust the fact checkers
THIS is the link he is trying to get you to go to, BUT, you have to go there manually, one step at a time, not just jump to it whole link....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2012/12-398_h3dj.pdf
The Case is from 2012, NOT NEWER....
It's the one at the top of the list....
Looking for the OPINIONS PDF, under OPINIONS, 2012 and 2013....
ALL or Any part of this should be in there somewhere....
OOF, went through lots of PDF Table of Cases, aka Table of Contents, found nothing....
Reran a search and found THIS, and within this link is the Opnions::
Read it for yourselves, I refuse to read this to confirm or deny any of it for anyone....
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/569/576/
Thank you!
Read it. It doesn't say any of that.
I added this to my original reply but thought it should have its own reply - I was able to find the opinions page for the court case in the wayback machine, it does seem to have been deleted elsewhere. I searched phrases that this man is speaking ('are products') and not finding what he is saying:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210701182721/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2gZBC0ZRg9m7CaJ1-Y36eJ2vgEeqiW2VqESnoVE8ETR3JuePvPkF3RiIY
Link without the Facebook Click ID (fbclid) -
https://web.archive.org/web/20210701182721/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf
It's from Rense News https://rense.com/general96/if-you-have-been-vaxed-you-are-now-owned.php:
If You Have Been Vaxed You Are Now Owned And Have No More Access To HUMAN RIGHTS Supreme Court 2013 - Pathology vs Myriad Genetics The Vaxed Can Be Patented (Owned)
Summary From The Net 7-11-21
In a Supreme Court case decision in 2013 - Pathology vs Myriad Genetics, Inc - the United States Supreme Court ruled that you cannot patent human DNA as it is 'a product of nature'. However, at the end of the ruling, the Supreme Court wrote that if you were to change a human's genome by mRNA vaccines (being used currently) then the (altered) genome CAN be patented.
This means that everyone who has had the 'vaccine' is now technically 'patented'. Anything that is patented is 'owned' and comes under the definition of 'trans human'.
All people who are legally identified as being 'trans human' do not have access to Human Rights or any Rights granted by the State. That is because they are not classified as anything 100% organic or human.
Therefore, technically, anyone having this 'vaccine' can no longer have any access to Human Rights. There have been a few legal papers discussing this recently, so there should be clarification on this soon. As of now, the high court ruling stands.
Full Supreme Court Ruling www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf [Note: the link goes to Error notice]
While potentially correct (it was not a firm positive, but a maybe/probably), that still applies to the altered portions of the genome, as IP, not necessarily the actual people involved. IoW, it's likely that such patenting would just mean that Moderna, or whomever, could use DNA sequencing to prove that a competitor violated their patent with Treatment X.
For another analogy, patents on how your fancy new car's electronic stability control works doesn't make the car not yours. It just makes that particular combination of sensors, actuators, software behaviors, etc. not yours to commercially reproduce and sell.
Now, even if it did get ruled that natural vs unnatural DNA alteration changed your personhood status in some legal way, you would still have had to have that change made with full knowledge and consent, at the time of, "treatment," for it to hold any weight. If done to you without knowledge and consent, or under duress, then it's no good, as a way to deny rights because of the consequences. Informed consent has already been blown out of the water, across many dimensions, plus there's the use of coercion, as it concerns the jabs. I think the only ones that would be affected by this is some crazy way would be designer babies - genetically altered from conception, or during gestation, with the parents' informed consent. Vax babies aught to fall under similar pretext as vaxxed parents.
https://greatawakening.win/p/17r9b8jcpB/x/c/4TxjNzC1Qtc
Seems to have a link to the summary. I could see that altered DNA is patentable.
There was concern on these boards a while back about the potential for a Monsanto SCOTUS ruled precedent that would allow for all genetically modified organisms (in that case it was food) to be owned by Monsanto specifically because it had the DNA Monsanto designed. Hence wind sending modified pollen into a neighbors field now made the neighbors crop property of Monsanto & the neighbor lost everything because it wasn't his design genetically (I need to find the links, though that is what got many worried at the time that this mRNA shot could be used to enslave shot takers).
edit: Did some more digging & found this writers opinion on all the GMO cases they could find & why the courts ruled the way they did. I would need to dig into them all. Cross pollination case was #3 and I am linking to the second one (ljnks for the first & third in the series are in this link too). https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2021/12/16/gmo-patent-controversy-2-supreme-court-cases-farmers-bowman-schmeiser/
Still going back to read the first summary to see if I can figure out why so many have been worried that genetically modified individuals might be considered property (or a potential legal pathway for that).
edit 2- The author is a geneticist & discussing how (interestingly enough) they only found Monsanto was targeted by lawsuits instead of other competitors in GMOs.
I would need to dig into the court opinions/briefs myself to determine if there is any potential legal pathway for pharma/vaccine/Shot creators to own the "trans" humans that have been genetically modified. I still am not seeing it after looking over these articles, though I could be missing something by not digging deeper yet.
I heard of this a while back and the document did exist at one time
https://greatawakening.win/p/17r9b8jcpB/x/c/4TxjNzC1Qtc
Is this it?
Still looking. So far I found:
12-398**# CFX ASSN. FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY V. MYRIAD GENETICS
https://greatawakening.win/p/17r9b8jcpB/x/c/4TxjNzC1Qtc
Is this it?
Hmmmmm maybe some of this has some truth but seems a little over the top.
Who reads a link out instead of providing it in the description/comments ?
He immediately comes across as technologically illiterate by doing so.
Nice work by the diggers in this thread.
I think this video is fake as he does not put the link in the text - whatever he is reading I can't find.
are we human? or are we transers?