HeyTewdryg, I've enjoyed many of your posts on GAW, and tend to agree with you most of the time.

I do not disagree with you here, but I want to challenge you to consider thinking about all of this and similar issues from a different perspective.

When the Founding Fathers experienced the crimes against human (fundamental) rights that the British government was inflicting upon the colonists, they were likely pissed off at first, then it became outrageous, and then they took action.

I am not calling for a revolution, but simply to think about how they went through a mental process of changing their perspective from victim status to empowerment status.

We have been subjected to such abuse by employees of government for so long, that we have started to think from the victimhood viewpoint, when we should be thinking from the "we are the boss" viewpoint.

I recently ran across a very interesting federal statute, at 28 USC 2072. Note paragraph (b):

(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.

This refers to the rules of federal court, as it relates to rules of procedure and admission of evidence. Did you catch the key words?

Such rules (of court procedure and admission of evidence in a court case) ... SHALL NOT ABRIDGE ... ANY SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT (of the individual).

Why is that there? Because the Constitution DEMANDS that the government (which was created by the Constitution) MUST FOLLOW the natural law principle of the purpose of why a government exists in the first place. From the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths ... that in order to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The Constitution created a federal government, which derived its just (lawful) powers from the consent of the People. That document requires that the government may NOT infringe on the fundamental rights of the People. The only exception to that is that a particular individual's rights may be violated IF AND ONLY IF it is done through Due Process of Law (i.e. they must be prosecuted and given Due Process).

Much of the frustration that people have today is not understanding or not accepting that the federal government, in particular, has LIMITED AUTHORITY.

If you actually read any executive order, statute, regulation, etc. from the perspective of this LIMITED AUTHORITY, you will ALWAYS find that some sort of color of law is used to "make it look good," but in reality there is NO SUBSTANCE for those situations where they actually violate the law and only pretend to honor it.

A great example was the "CDC guideline" for wearing face masks on public transportation. First off, the CDC is a federal government agency and ONLY has authority (if it has any at all) for (a) federal government employees everywhere, and (b) the general population WITHIN THE FEDERAL TERRITORIES AND ENCLAVES. This means they do NOT have any authority within the States, generally.

When I read their official statement on their "guideline," I looked for the legal clause about where they claim that they had legal authority for this action. In order for the CDC employees to do ANYTHING, the MUST ALWAYS have permission to do it from someone higher than themselves. Sure enough, it was near the bottom of their statement, and they cited specific sections of a specific federal statute.

So, I looked that up, and guess what? That law did NOT provide any authority for any agency to demand face masks on anyone. It was ONLY for (a) "items" (animals, plants, and inanimate objects) coming into the US that might be harmful, and (b) LOCATIONS under federal government control, such as ports of entry in sea ports. And all of it was for quarantines only. Nothing else.

Of course, neither the CDC nor the media mentioned the LIMITS of the jurisdication of the "guideline" (which was not even a regulation demanding anything, but merely a suggestion).

At this point in American history, I suspect that the vast majority of law school graduates themselves have no idea about the truth of federal jurisdication, just as most medical school graduates have no idea bout the truth of Germ Theory.

Now, more to your point, the idea that drug makers could be given "immunity" for harm caused to others is LAUGHABLE.

No person, whether police officer, judge, politician, NIAID director, or CEO of a private drug manufacturing company ... repeat, NO PERSON ... may have immunity for CRIMINAL ACTS. Period.

At MOST, the federal government can tell the courts not to prosecute a criminal or civil case against them. Even that cannot stand if the allegation is about a crime. In any case, the federal government has LIMITED authority, and they have NO AUTHORITY to tell the state courts what to do or not do.

I see no reason why state courts could not hold the drug companies accountable for their criminal actions. And any judges or prosecutors who will not do their duty can be ... REPLACED ... and even ... PROSECUTED themselves.

Finally, most people have heard about the "Miranda warning" when a cop "reads you your rights" when arrested. What most people do not know is that the Miranda case was NOT specifically about reading someone their rights. That was the end result, but the actual key decision by the court was this:

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are concerned, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." -- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966).

In addition, the law on fraud is:

"Fraud vitiates every thing." -- US v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 (1876)

The reason that 28 USC 2072(b) exists is because the RULE OF LAW in America is that NO LEGISLATURE (including Congress), and NO AGENCY can issue any statute or regulation that would violate the fundamental rights of the People.

This would include a so-called "vaccine court" that purports to protect individuals from criminal prosecution and personal liability for criminal acts.

If more of us start thinking in these terms, and use the State governments to hold criminals accountable -- including the corrupt judges and attorneys, THEN we will begin the process of taking back our America.

And not one minute before then.

HeyTewdryg, I've enjoyed many of your posts on GAW, and tend to agree with you most of the time.

I do not disagree with you here, but I want to challenge you to consider thinking about all of this and similar issues from a different perspective.

When the Founding Fathers experienced the crimes against human (fundamental) rights that the British government was inflicting upon the colonists, they were likely pissed off at first, then it became outrageous, and then they took action.

I am not calling for a revolution, but simply to think about how they went through a mental process of changing their perspective from victim status to empowerment status.

We have been subjected to such abuse by employees of government for so long, that we have started to think from the victimhood viewpoint, when we should be thinking from the "we are the boss" viewpoint.

I recently ran across a very interesting federal statute, at 28 USC 2072. Note paragraph (b):

(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.

This refers to the rules of federal court, as it relates to rules of procedure and admission of evidence. Did you catch the key words?

Such rules (of court procedure and admission of evidence in a court case) ... SHALL NOT ABRIDGE ... ANY SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT (of the individual).

Why is that there? Because the Constitution DEMANDS that the government (which was created by the Constitution) MUST FOLLOW the natural law principle of the purpose of why a government exists in the first place. From the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths ... that in order to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The Constitution created a federal government, which derived its just (lawful) powers from the consent of the People. That document requires that the government may NOT infringe on the fundamental rights of the People. The only exception to that is that a particular individual's rights may be violated IF AND ONLY IF it is done through Due Process of Law (i.e. they must be prosecuted and given Due Process).

Much of the frustration that people have today is not understanding or not accepting that the federal government, in particular, has LIMITED AUTHORITY.

If you actually read any executive order, statute, regulation, etc. from the perspective of this LIMITED AUTHORITY, you will ALWAYS find that some sort of color of law is used to "make it look good," but in reality there is NO SUBSTANCE for those situations where they actually violate the law and only pretend to honor it.

A great example was the "CDC guideline" for wearing face masks on public transportation. First off, the CDC is a federal government agency and ONLY has authority (if it has any at all) for (a) federal government employees everywhere, and (b) the general population WITHIN THE FEDERAL TERRITORIES AND ENCLAVES. This means they do NOT have any authority within the States, generally.

When I read their official statement on their "guideline," I looked for the legal clause about where they claim that they had legal authority for this action. In order for the CDC employees to do ANYTHING, the MUST ALWAYS have permission to do it from someone higher than themselves. Sure enough, it was near the bottom of their statement, and they cited specific sections of a specific federal statute.

So, I looked that up, and guess what? That law did NOT provide any authority for any agency to demand face masks on anyone. It was ONLY for (a) "items" (animals, plants, and inanimate objects) coming into the US that might be harmful, and (b) LOCATIONS under federal government control, such as ports of entry in sea ports. And all of it was for quarantines only. Nothing else.

Of course, neither the CDC nor the media mentioned the LIMITS of the jurisdication of the "guideline" (which was not even a regulation demanding anything, but merely a suggestion).

At this point in American history, I suspect that the vast majority of law school graduates themselves have no idea about the truth of federal jurisdication, just as most medical school graduates have no idea bout the truth of Germ Theory.

Now, more to your point, the idea that drug makers could be given "immunity" for harm caused to others is LAUGHABLE.

No person, whether police officer, judge, politician, NIAID director, or CEO of a private drug manufacturing company ... repeat, NO PERSON ... may have immunity for CRIMINAL ACTS. Period.

At MOST, the federal government can tell the courts not to prosecute a criminal or civil case against them. Even that cannot stand if the allegation is about a crime. In any case, the federal government has LIMITED authority, and they have NO AUTHORITY to tell the state courts what to do or not do.

I see no reason why state courts could not hold the drug companies accountable for their criminal actions. And any judges or prosecutors who will not do their duty can be ... REPLACED ... and even ... PROSECUTED themselves.

Finally, most people have heard about the "Miranda warning" when a cop "reads you your rights" when arrested. What most people do not know is that the Miranda case was NOT specifically about reading someone their rights. That was the end result, but the actual key decision by the court was this:

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are concerned, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." -- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966).

In addition, the law on fraud is:

"Fraud vitiates every thing." -- US v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 (1876)

The reason that 28 USC 2072(b) exists is because the RULE OF LAW in America is that NO LEGISLATURE (including Congress), and NO AGENCY can issue any statute or regulation that would violate the fundamental rights of the People.

This would include a so-called "vaccine court" that purports to protect individuals from criminal prosecution and personal liability for those criminal acts.

If more of us start thinking in these terms, and use the State governments to hold criminals accountable -- including the corrupt judges and attorneys, THEN we will begin the process of taking back our America.

And not one minute before then.

HeyTewdryg, I've enjoyed many of your posts on GAW, and tend to agree with you most of the time.

I do not disagree with you here, but I want to challenge you to consider thinking about all of this and similar issues from a different perspective.

When the Founding Fathers experienced the crimes against human (fundamental) rights that the British government was inflicting upon the colonists, they were likely pissed off at first, then it became outrageous, and then they took action.

I am not calling for a revolution, but simply to think about how they went through a mental process of changing their perspective from victim status to empowerment status.

We have been subjected to such abuse by employees of government for so long, that we have started to think from the victimhood viewpoint, when we should be thinking from the "we are the boss" viewpoint.

I recently ran across a very interesting federal statute, at 28 USC 2072. Note paragraph (b):

(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.

This refers to the rules of federal court, as it relates to rules of procedure and admission of evidence. Did you catch the key words?

Such rules (of court procedure and admission of evidence in a court case) ... SHALL NOT ABRIDGE ... ANY SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT (of the individual).

Why is that there? Because the Constitution DEMANDS that the government (which was created by the Constitution) MUST FOLLOW the natural law principle of the purpose of why a government exists in the first place. From the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths ... that in order to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The Constitution created a federal government, which derived its just (lawful) powers from the consent of the People. That document requires that the government may NOT infringe on the fundamental rights of the People. The only exception to that is that a particular individual's rights may be violated IF AND ONLY IF it is done through Due Process of Law (i.e. they must be prosecuted and given Due Process).

Much of the frustration that people have today is not understanding or not accepting that the federal government, in particular, has LIMITED AUTHORITY.

If you actually read any executive order, statute, regulation, etc. from the perspective of this LIMITED AUTHORITY, you will ALWAYS find that some sort of color of law is used to "make it look good," but in reality there is NO SUBSTANCE for those situations where they actually violate the law and only pretend to honor it.

A great example was the "CDC guideline" for wearing face masks on public transportation. First off, the CDC is a federal government agency and ONLY has authority (if it has any at all) for (a) federal government employees everywhere, and (b) the general population WITHIN THE FEDERAL TERRITORIES AND ENCLAVES. This means they do NOT have any authority within the States, generally.

When I read their official statement on their "guideline," I looked for the legal clause about where they claim that they had legal authority for this action. In order for the CDC employees to do ANYTHING, the MUST ALWAYS have permission to do it from someone higher than themselves. Sure enough, it was near the bottom of their statement, and they cited specific sections of a specific federal statute.

So, I looked that up, and guess what? That law did NOT provide any authority for any agency to demand face masks on anyone. It was ONLY for (a) "items" (animals, plants, and inanimate objects) coming into the US that might be harmful, and (b) LOCATIONS under federal government control, such as ports of entry in sea ports.

Of course, neither the CDC nor the media mentioned the LIMITS of the jurisdication of the "guideline" (which was not even a regulation demanding anything, but merely a suggestion).

At this point in American history, I suspect that the vast majority of law school graduates themselves have no idea about the truth of federal jurisdication, just as most medical school graduates have no idea bout the truth of Germ Theory.

Now, more to your point, the idea that drug makers could be given "immunity" for harm caused to others is LAUGHABLE.

No person, whether police officer, judge, politician, NIAID director, or CEO of a private drug manufacturing company ... repeat, NO PERSON ... may have immunity for CRIMINAL ACTS. Period.

At MOST, the federal government can tell the courts not to prosecute a criminal or civil case against them. Even that cannot stand if the allegation is about a crime. In any case, the federal government has LIMITED authority, and they have NO AUTHORITY to tell the state courts what to do or not do.

I see no reason why state courts could not hold the drug companies accountable for their criminal actions. And any judges or prosecutors who will not do their duty can be ... REPLACED ... and even ... PROSECUTED themselves.

Finally, most people have heard about the "Miranda warning" when a cop "reads you your rights" when arrested. What most people do not know is that the Miranda case was NOT specifically about reading someone their rights. That was the end result, but the actual key decision by the court was this:

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are concerned, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." -- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966).

In addition, the law on fraud is:

"Fraud vitiates every thing." -- US v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 (1876)

The reason that 28 USC 2072(b) exists is because the RULE OF LAW in America is that NO LEGISLATURE (including Congress), and NO AGENCY can issue any statute or regulation that would violate the fundamental rights of the People.

This would include a so-called "vaccine court" that purports to protect individuals from criminal prosecution and personal liability for those criminal acts.

If more of us start thinking in these terms, and use the State governments to hold criminals accountable -- including the corrupt judges and attorneys, THEN we will begin the process of taking back our America.

And not one minute before then.

HeyTewdryg, I've enjoyed many of your posts on GAW, and tend to agree with you most of the time.

I do not disagree with you here, but I want to challenge you to consider thinking about all of this and similar issues from a different perspective.

When the Founding Fathers experienced the crimes against human (fundamental) rights that the British government was inflicting upon the colonists, they were likely pissed off at first, then it became outrageous, and then they took action.

I am not calling for a revolution, but simply to think about how they went through a mental process of changing their perspective from victim status to empowerment status.

We have been subjected to such abuse by employees of government for so long, that we have started to think from the victimhood viewpoint, when we should be thinking from the "we are the boss" viewpoint.

I recently ran across a very interesting federal statute, at 28 USC 2072. Note paragraph (b):

(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.

This refers to the rules of federal court, as it relates to rules of procedure and admission of evidence. Did you catch the key words?

Such rules (of court procedure and admission of evidence in a court case) ... SHALL NOT ABRIDGE ... ANY SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT (of the individual).

Why is that there? Because the Constitution DEMANDS that the government (which was created by the Constitution) MUST FOLLOW the natural law principle of the purpose of why a government exists in the first place. From the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths ... that in order to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The Constitution created a federal government, which derived its just (lawful) powers from the consent of the People. That document requires that the government may NOT infringe on the fundamental rights of the People. The only exception to that is that a particular individual's rights may be violated IF AND ONLY IF it is done through Due Process of Law (i.e. they must be prosecuted and given Due Process).

Much of the frustration that people have today is not understanding or not accepting that the federal government, in particular, has LIMITED AUTHORITY.

If you actually read any executive order, statute, regulation, etc. from the perspective of this LIMITED AUTHORITY, you will ALWAYS find that some sort of color of law is used to "make it look good," but in reality there is NO SUBSTANCE for those situations where they actually violate the law and only pretend to honor it.

A great example was the "CDC guideline" for wearing face masks on public transportation. First off, the CDC is a federal government agency and ONLY has authority (if it has any at all) for (a) federal government employees everywhere, and (b) the general population WITHIN THE FEDERAL TERRITORIES AND ENCLAVES. This means they do NOT have any authority within the States, generally.

When I read their official statement on their "guideline," I looked for the legal clause about where they claim that they had legal authority for this action. Sure enough, it was near the bottom of their statement, and they cited specific sections of a specific federal statute.

So, I looked that up, and guess what? That law did NOT provide any authority for any agency to demand face masks on anyone. It was ONLY for (a) "items" (animals, plants, and inanimate objects) coming into the US that might be harmful, and (b) LOCATIONS under federal government control, such as ports of entry in sea ports.

Of course, neither the CDC nor the media mentioned the LIMITS of the jurisdication of the "guideline" (which was not even a regulation demanding anything, but merely a suggestion).

At this point in American history, I suspect that the vast majority of law school graduates themselves have no idea about the truth of federal jurisdication, just as most medical school graduates have no idea bout the truth of Germ Theory.

Now, more to your point, the idea that drug makers could be given "immunity" for harm caused to others is LAUGHABLE.

No person, whether police officer, judge, politician, NIAID director, or CEO of a private drug manufacturing company ... repeat, NO PERSON ... may have immunity for CRIMINAL ACTS. Period.

At MOST, the federal government can tell the courts not to prosecute a criminal or civil case against them. Even that cannot stand if the allegation is about a crime. In any case, the federal government has LIMITED authority, and they have NO AUTHORITY to tell the state courts what to do or not do.

I see no reason why state courts could not hold the drug companies accountable for their criminal actions. And any judges or prosecutors who will not do their duty can be ... REPLACED ... and even ... PROSECUTED themselves.

Finally, most people have heard about the "Miranda warning" when a cop "reads you your rights" when arrested. What most people do not know is that the Miranda case was NOT specifically about reading someone their rights. That was the end result, but the actual key decision by the court was this:

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are concerned, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." -- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966).

In addition, the law on fraud is:

"Fraud vitiates every thing." -- US v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 (1876)

The reason that 28 USC 2072(b) exists is because the RULE OF LAW in America is that NO LEGISLATURE (including Congress), and NO AGENCY can issue any statute or regulation that would violate the fundamental rights of the People.

This would include a so-called "vaccine court" that purports to protect individuals from criminal prosecution and personal liability for those criminal acts.

If more of us start thinking in these terms, and use the State governments to hold criminals accountable -- including the corrupt judges and attorneys, THEN we will begin the process of taking back our America.

And not one minute before then.

HeyTewdryg, I've enjoyed many of your posts on GAW, and tend to agree with you most of the time.

I do not disagree with you here, but I want to challenge you to consider thinking about all of this and similar issues from a different perspective.

When the Founding Fathers experienced the crimes against human (fundamental) rights that the British government was inflicting upon the colonists, they were likely pissed off at first, then it became outrageous, and then they took action.

I am not calling for a revolution, but simply to think about how they went through a mental process of changing their perspective from victim status to empowerment status.

We have been subjected to such abuse by employees of government for so long, that we have started to think from the victimhood viewpoint, when we should be thinking from the "we are the boss" viewpoint.

I recently ran across a very interesting federal statute, at 28 USC 2072. Note paragraph (b):

(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.

This refers to the rules of federal court, as it relates to rules of procedure and admission of evidence. Did you catch the key words?

Such rules (of court procedure and admission of evidence in a court case) ... SHALL NOT ABRIDGE ... ANY SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT (of the individual).

Why is that there? Because the Constitution DEMANDS that the government (which was created by the Constitution) MUST FOLLOW the natural law principle of the purpose of why a government exists in the first place. From the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths ... that in order to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The Constitution created a federal government, which derived its just (lawful) powers from the consent of the People. That document requires that the government may NOT infringe on the fundamental rights of the People. The only exception to that is that a particular individual's rights may be violated IF AND ONLY IF it is done through Due Process of Law (i.e. they must be prosecuted and given Due Process).

Much of the frustration that people have today is not understanding or not accepting that the federal government, in particular, has LIMITED AUTHORITY.

If you actually read any executive order, statute, regulation, etc. from the perspective of this LIMITED AUTHORITY, you will ALWAYS find that some sort of color of law is used to "make it look good," but in reality there is NO SUBSTANCE for those situations where they actually violate the law and only pretend to honor it.

A great example was the "CDC guideline" for wearing face masks on public transportation. First off, the CDC is a federal government agency and ONLY has authority (if it has any at all) for (a) federal government employees everywhere, and (b) the general population WITHIN THE FEDERAL TERRITORIES AND ENCLAVES. This means they do NOT have any authority within the States, generally.

When I read their official statement on their "guideline," I looked for their statement about where they claim legal authority for this action. Sure enough, it was near the bottom of their statement, and they cited specific sections of a specific federal statute.

So, I looked that up, and guess what? That law did NOT provide any authority for any agency to demand face masks on anyone. It was ONLY for (a) "items" (animals, plants, and inanimate objects) coming into the US that might be harmful, and (b) LOCATIONS under federal government control, such as ports of entry in sea ports.

Of course, neither the CDC nor the media mentioned the LIMITS of the jurisdication of the "guideline" (which was not even a regulation demanding anything, but merely a suggestion).

At this point in American history, I suspect that the vast majority of law school graduates themselves have no idea about the truth of federal jurisdication, just as most medical school graduates have no idea bout the truth of Germ Theory.

Now, more to your point, the idea that drug makers could be given "immunity" for harm caused to others is LAUGHABLE.

No person, whether police officer, judge, politician, NIAID director, or CEO of a private drug manufacturing company ... repeat, NO PERSON ... may have immunity for CRIMINAL ACTS. Period.

At MOST, the federal government can tell the courts not to prosecute a criminal or civil case against them. Even that cannot stand if the allegation is about a crime. In any case, the federal government has LIMITED authority, and they have NO AUTHORITY to tell the state courts what to do or not do.

I see no reason why state courts could not hold the drug companies accountable for their criminal actions. And any judges or prosecutors who will not do their duty can be ... REPLACED ... and even ... PROSECUTED themselves.

Finally, most people have heard about the "Miranda warning" when a cop "reads you your rights" when arrested. What most people do not know is that the Miranda case was NOT specifically about reading someone their rights. That was the end result, but the actual key decision by the court was this:

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are concerned, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." -- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966).

In addition, the law on fraud is:

"Fraud vitiates every thing." -- US v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 (1876)

The reason that 28 USC 2072(b) exists is because the RULE OF LAW in America is that NO LEGISLATURE (including Congress), and NO AGENCY can issue any statute or regulation that would violate the fundamental rights of the People.

This would include a so-called "vaccine court" that purports to protect individuals from criminal prosecution and personal liability for those criminal acts.

If more of us start thinking in these terms, and use the State governments to hold criminals accountable -- including the corrupt judges and attorneys, THEN we will begin the process of taking back our America.

And not one minute before then.

HeyTewdryg, I've enjoyed many of your posts on GAW, and tend to agree with you most of the time.

I do not disagree with you here, but I want to challenge you to consider thinking about all of this and similar issues from a different perspective.

When the Founding Fathers experienced the crimes against human (fundamental) rights that the British government was inflicting upon the colonists, they were likely pissed off at first, then it became outrageous, and then they took action.

I am not calling for a revolution, but simply to think about how they went through a mental process of changing their perspective from victim status to empowerment status.

We have been subjected to such abuse by employees of government for so long, that we have started to think from the victimhood viewpoint, when we should be thinking from the "we are the boss" viewpoint.

I recently ran across a very interesting federal statute, at 28 USC 2072. Note paragraph (b):

(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.

This refers to the rules of federal court, as it relates to rules of procedure and admission evidence. Did you catch the key words?

Such rules (of court procedure and admission of evidence in a court case) ... SHALL NOT ABRIDGE ... ANY SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT (of the individual).

Why is that there? Because the Constitution DEMANDS that the government (which was created by the Constitution) MUST FOLLOW the natural law principle of the purpose of why a government exists in the first place. From the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths ... that in order to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The Constitution created a federal government, which derived its just (lawful) powers from the consent of the People. That document requires that the government may NOT infringe on the fundamental rights of the People. The only exception to that is that a particular individual's rights may be violated IF AND ONLY IF it is done through Due Process of Law (i.e. they must be prosecuted and given Due Process).

Much of the frustration that people have today is not understanding or not accepting that the federal government, in particular, has LIMITED AUTHORITY.

If you actually read any executive order, statute, regulation, etc. from the perspective of this LIMITED AUTHORITY, you will ALWAYS find that some sort of color of law is used to "make it look good," but in reality there is NO SUBSTANCE for those situations where they actually violate the law and only pretend to honor it.

A great example was the "CDC guideline" for wearing face masks on public transportation. First off, the CDC is a federal government agency and ONLY has authority (if it has any at all) for (a) federal government employees everywhere, and (b) the general population WITHIN THE FEDERAL TERRITORIES AND ENCLAVES. This means they do NOT have any authority within the States, generally.

When I read their official statement on their "guideline," I looked for their statement about where they claim legal authority for this action. Sure enough, it was near the bottom of their statement, and they cited specific sections of a specific federal statute.

So, I looked that up, and guess what? That law did NOT provide any authority for any agency to demand face masks on anyone. It was ONLY for (a) "items" (animals, plants, and inanimate objects) coming into the US that might be harmful, and (b) LOCATIONS under federal government control, such as ports of entry in sea ports.

Of course, neither the CDC nor the media mentioned the LIMITS of the jurisdication of the "guideline" (which was not even a regulation demanding anything, but merely a suggestion).

At this point in American history, I suspect that the vast majority of law school graduates themselves have no idea about the truth of federal jurisdication, just as most medical school graduates have no idea bout the truth of Germ Theory.

Now, more to your point, the idea that drug makers could be given "immunity" for harm caused to others is LAUGHABLE.

No person, whether police officer, judge, politician, NIAID director, or CEO of a private drug manufacturing company ... repeat, NO PERSON ... may have immunity for CRIMINAL ACTS. Period.

At MOST, the federal government can tell the courts not to prosecute a criminal or civil case against them. Even that cannot stand if the allegation is about a crime. In any case, the federal government has LIMITED authority, and they have NO AUTHORITY to tell the state courts what to do or not do.

I see no reason why state courts could not hold the drug companies accountable for their criminal actions. And any judges or prosecutors who will not do their duty can be ... REPLACED ... and even ... PROSECUTED themselves.

Finally, most people have heard about the "Miranda warning" when a cop "reads you your rights" when arrested. What most people do not know is that the Miranda case was NOT specifically about reading someone their rights. That was the end result, but the actual key decision by the court was this:

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are concerned, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." -- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966).

In addition, the law on fraud is:

"Fraud vitiates every thing." -- US v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 (1876)

The reason that 28 USC 2072(b) exists is because the RULE OF LAW in America is that NO LEGISLATURE (including Congress), and NO AGENCY can issue any statute or regulation that would violate the fundamental rights of the People.

This would include a so-called "vaccine court" that purports to protect individuals from criminal prosecution and personal liability for those criminal acts.

If more of us start thinking in these terms, and use the State governments to hold criminals accountable -- including the corrupt judges and attorneys, THEN we will begin the process of taking back our America.

And not one minute before then.

HeyTewdryg, I've enjoyed many of your posts on GAW, and tend to agree with you most of the time.

I do not disagree with you here, but I want to challenge you to consider thinking about all of this and similar issues from a different perspective.

When the Founding Fathers experienced the crimes against human (fundamental) rights that the British government was inflicting upon the colonists, they were likely pissed off at first, then it became outrageous, and then they took action.

I am not calling for a revolution, but simply to think about how they went through a mental process of changing their perspective from victim status to empowerment status.

We have been subjected to such abuse by employees of government for so long, that we have started to think from the victimhood viewpoint, when we should be thinking from the "we are the boss" viewpoint.

I recently ran across a very interesting federal statute, at 28 USC 2072. Note paragraph (b):

(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.

This refers to the rules of federal court, as it relates to rules of procedure and admission evidence. Did you catch the key words?

Such rules (of court procedure and admission of evidence in a court case) ... SHALL NOT ABRIDGE ... ANY SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT (of the individual).

Why is that there? Because the Constitution DEMANDS that the government (which was created by the Constitution) MUST FOLLOW the natural law principle of the purpose of why a government exists in the first place. From the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths ... that in order to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The Constitution created a federal government, which derived its just (lawful) powers from the consent of the People. That document requires that the government may NOT infringe on the fundamental rights of the People. The only exception to that is that a particular individual's rights may be violated IF AND ONLY IF it is done through Due Process of Law (i.e. they must be prosecuted and given Due Process).

Much of the frustration that people have today is not understanding or not accepting that the federal government, in particular, has LIMITED AUTHORITY.

If you actually read any executive order, statute, regulation, etc. from the perspective of this LIMITED AUTHORITY, you will ALWAYS find that some sort of color of law is used to "make it look good," but in reality there is NO SUBSTANCE for those situations where they actually violate the law and only pretend to honor it.

A great example was the "CDC guideline" for wearing face masks on public transportation. First off, the CDC is a federal government agency and ONLY has authority (if it has any at all) for (a) federal government employees everywhere, and (b) the general population WITHIN THE FEDERAL TERRITORIES AND ENCLAVES. This means they do NOT have any authority within the States, generally.

When I read their official statement on their "guideline," I looked for their statement about where they claim legal authority for this action. Sure enough, it was near the bottom of their statement, and they cited specific sections of a specific federal statute.

So, I looked that up, and guess what? That law did NOT provide any authority for any agency to demand face masks on anyone. It was ONLY for (a) "items" (animals, plants, and inanimate objects) coming into the US that might be harmful, and (b) LOCATIONS under federal government control, such as ports of entry in sea ports.

Of course, neither the CDC nor the media mentioned the LIMITS of the jurisdication of the "guideline" (which was not even a regulation demanding anything, but merely a suggestion).

At this point in American history, I suspect that the vast majority of law school graduates themselves have no idea about the truth of federal jurisdication, just as most medical school graduates have no idea bout the truth of Germ Theory.

Now, more to your point, the idea that drug makers could be given "immunity" for harm caused to others is LAUGHABLE.

No person, whether police officer, judge, politician, NIAID director, or CEO of a private drug manufacturing company ... repeat, NO PERSON ... may have immunity for CRIMINAL ACTS. Period.

At MOST, the federal government can tell the courts not to prosecute a criminal or civil case against them. Even that cannot stand if the allegation is about a crime. In any case, the federal government has LIMITED authority, and they have NO AUTHORITY to tell the state courts what to do or not do.

I see no reason why state courts could not hold the drug companies accountable for their criminal actions. And any judges or prosecutors who will not do their duty can be ... REPLACED ... and even ... PROSECUTED themselves.

Finally, most people have heard about the "Miranda warning" when a cop "reads you your rights" when arrested. What most people do not know is that the Miranda case was NOT specifically about reading someone their rights. That was the end result, but the actual key decision by the court was this:

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are concerned, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." -- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966).

In addition, the law on fraud is:

"Fraud vitiates every thing." -- US v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 (1876)

The reason that 28 USC 2072(b) exists is because the RULE OF LAW in America is that NO LEGISLATURE (including Congress), and NO AGENCY can issue any statute or regulation that would violate the fundamental rights of the People.

If more of us start thinking in these terms, and use the State governments to hold criminals accountable -- including the corrupt judges and attorneys, THEN we will begin the process of taking back our America.

And not one minute before then.

HeyTewdryg, I've enjoyed many of your posts on GAW, and tend to agree with you most of the time.

I do not disagree with you here, but I want to challenge you to consider thinking about all of this and similar issues from a different perspective.

When the Founding Fathers experienced the crimes against human (fundamental) rights that the British government was inflicting upon the colonists, they were likely pissed off at first, then it became outrageous, and then they took action.

I am not calling for a revolution, but simply to think about how they went through a mental process of changing their perspective from victim status to empowerment status.

We have been subjected to such abuse by employees of government for so long, that we have started to think from the victimhood viewpoint, when we should be thinking from the "we are the boss" viewpoint.

I recently ran across a very interesting federal statute, at 28 USC 2072. Note paragraph (b):

(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.

This refers to the rules of federal court, as it relates to rules of procedure and admission evidence. Did you catch the key words?

Such rules (of court procedure and admission of evidence in a court case) ... SHALL NOT ABRIDGE ... ANY SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT (of the individual).

Why is that there? Because the Constitution DEMANDS that the government (which was created by the Constitution) MUST FOLLOW the natural law principle of the purpose of why a government exists in the first place. From the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths ... that in order to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The Constitution created a federal government, which derived its just (lawful) powers from the consent of the People. That document requires that the government may NOT infringe on the fundamental rights of the People. The only exception to that is that a particular individual's rights may be violated IF AND ONLY IF it is done through Due Process of Law (i.e. they must be prosecuted and given Due Process).

Much of the frustration that people have today is not understanding or not accepting that the federal government, in particular, has LIMITED AUTHORITY.

If you actually read any executive order, statute, regulation, etc. from the perspective of this LIMITED AUTHORITY, you will ALWAYS find that some sort of color of law is used to "make it look good," but in reality there is NO SUBSTANCE for those situations where they actually violate the law and only pretend to honor it.

A great example was the "CDC guideline" for wearing face masks on public transportation. First off, the CDC is a federal government agency and ONLY has authority (if it has any at all) for (a) federal government employees everywhere, and (b) the general population WITHIN THE FEDERAL TERRITORIES AND ENCLAVES. This means they do NOT have any authority within the States, generally.

When I read their official statement on their "guideline," I looked for their statement about where they claim legal authority for this action. Sure enough, it was near the bottom of their statement, and they cited specific sections of a specific federal statute.

So, I looked that up, and guess what? That law did NOT provide any authority for any agency to demand face masks on anyone. It was ONLY for (a) "items" (animals, plants, and inanimate objects) coming into the US that might be harmful, and (b) LOCATIONS under federal government control, such as ports of entry in sea ports.

Of course, neither the CDC nor the media mentioned the LIMITS of the jurisdication of the "guideline" (which was not even a regulation demanding anything, but merely a suggestion).

At this point in American history, I suspect that the vast majority of law school graduates themselves have no idea about the truth of federal jurisdication, just as most medical school graduates have no idea bout the truth of Germ Theory.

Now, more to your point, the idea that drug makers could be given "immunity" for harm caused to others is LAUGHABLE.

No person, whether police officer, judge, politician, NIAID director, or CEO of a private drug manufacturing company ... repeat, NO PERSON ... may have immunity for CRIMINAL ACTS. Period.

At MOST, the federal government can tell the courts not to prosecute a criminal or civil case against them. Even that cannot stand if the allegation is about a crime. In any case, the federal government has LIMITED authority, and they have NO AUTHORITY to tell the state courts what to do or not do.

I see no reason why state courts could not hold the drug companies accountable for their criminal actions. And any judges or prosecutors who will not do their duty can be ... REPLACED.

Finally, most people have heard about the "Miranda warning" when a cop "reads you your rights" when arrested. What most people do not know is that the Miranda case was NOT specifically about reading someone their rights. That was the end result, but the actual key decision by the court was this:

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are concerned, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." -- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966).

In addition, the law on fraud is:

"Fraud vitiates every thing." -- US v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 (1876)

The reason that 28 USC 2072(b) exists is because the RULE OF LAW in America is that NO LEGISLATURE (including Congress), and NO AGENCY can issue any statute or regulation that would violate the fundamental rights of the People.

If more of us start thinking in these terms, and use the State governments to hold criminals accountable -- including the corrupt judges and attorneys, THEN we will begin the process of taking back our America.

And not one minute before then.

HeyTewdryg, I've enjoyed many of your posts on GAW, and tend to agree with you most of the time.

I do not disagree with you here, but I want to challenge you to consider thinking about all of this and similar issues from a different perspective.

When the Founding Fathers experienced the crimes against human (fundamental) rights that the British government was inflicting upon the colonists, they were likely pissed off at first, then it became outrageous, and then they took action.

I am not calling for a revolution, but simply to think about how they went through a mental process of changing their perspective from victim status to empowerment status.

We have been subjected to such abuse by employees of government for so long, that we have started to think from the victimhood viewpoint, when we should be thinking from the "we are the boss" viewpoint.

I recently ran across a very interesting federal statute, at 28 USC 2072. Note paragraph (b):

(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.

This refers to the rules of federal court, as it relates to rules of procedure and admission evidence. Did you catch the key words?

Such rules (of court procedure and admission of evidence in a court case) ... SHALL NOT ABRIDGE ... ANY SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT (of the individual).

Why is that there? Because the Constitution DEMANDS that the government (which was created by the Constitution) MUST FOLLOW the natural law principle of the purpose of why a government exists in the first place. From the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths ... that in order to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The Constitution created a federal government, which derived its just (lawful) powers from the consent of the People. That document requires that the government may NOT infringe on the fundamental rights of the People. The only exception to that is that a particular individual's rights may be violated IF AND ONLY IF it is done through Due Process of Law (i.e. they must be prosecuted and given Due Process).

Much of the frustration that people have today is not understanding or not accepting that the federal government, in particular, has LIMITED AUTHORITY.

If you actually read any executive order, statute, regulation, etc. from the perspective of this LIMITED AUTHORITY, you will ALWAYS find that some sort of color of law is used to "make it look good," but in reality there is NO SUBSTANCE for those situations where they actually violate the law and only pretend to honor it.

A great example was the "CDC guideline" for wearing face masks on public transportation. First off, the CDC is a federal government agency and ONLY has authority (if it has any at all) for (a) federal government employees everywhere, and (b) the general population WITHIN THE FEDERAL TERRITORIES AND ENCLAVES. This means they do NOT have any authority within the States, generally.

When I read their official statement on their "guideline," I looked for their statement about where they claim legal authority for this action. Sure enough, it was near the bottom of their statement, and they cited specific sections of a specific federal statute.

So, I looked that up, and guess what? That law did NOT provide any authority for any agency to demand face masks on anyone. It was ONLY for (a) "items" (animals, plants, and inanimate objects) coming into the US that might be harmful, and (b) LOCATIONS under federal government control, such as ports of entry in sea ports.

Of course, neither the CDC nor the media mentioned the LIMITS of the jurisdication of the "guideline" (which was not even a regulation demanding anything, but merely a suggestion).

At this point in American history, I suspect that the vast majority of law school graduates themselves have no idea about the truth of federal jurisdication, just as most medical school graduates have no idea bout the truth of Germ Theory.

Now, more to your point, the idea that drug makers could be given "immunity" for harm caused to others is LAUGHABLE.

No person, whether police officer, judge, politician, NIAID director, or CEO of a private drug manufacturing company ... repeat, NO PERSON ... may have immunity for CRIMINAL ACTS. Period.

At MOST, the federal government can tell the courts not to prosecute a criminal or civil case against them. But, the federal government has LIMITED authority, and they have NO AUTHORITY to tell the state courts what to do or not do.

I see no reason why state courts could not hold the drug companies accountable for their criminal actions. And any judges or prosecutors who will not do their duty can be ... REPLACED.

Finally, most people have heard about the "Miranda warning" when a cop "reads you your rights" when arrested. What most people do not know is that the Miranda case was NOT specifically about reading someone their rights. That was the end result, but the actual key decision by the court was this:

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are concerned, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." -- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966).

In addition, the law on fraud is:

"Fraud vitiates every thing." -- US v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 (1876)

The reason that 28 USC 2072(b) exists is because the RULE OF LAW in America is that NO LEGISLATURE (including Congress), and NO AGENCY can issue any statute or regulation that would violate the fundamental rights of the People.

If more of us start thinking in these terms, and use the State governments to hold criminals accountable -- including the corrupt judges and attorneys, THEN we will begin the process of taking back our America.

And not one minute before then.

HeyTewdryg, I've enjoyed many of your posts on GAW, and tend to agree with you most of the time.

I do not disagree with you here, but I want to challenge you to consider thinking about all of this and similar issues from a different perspective.

When the Founding Fathers experienced the crimes against human (fundamental) rights that the British government was inflicting upon the colonists, they were likely pissed off at first, then it became outrageous, and then they took action.

I am not calling for a revolution, but simply to think about how they went through a mental process of changing their perspective from victim status to empowerment status.

We have been subjected to such abuse by employees of government for so long, that we have started to think from the victimhood viewpoint, when we should be thinking from the "we are the boss" viewpoint.

I recently ran across a very interesting federal statute, at 28 USC 2072. Note paragraph (b):

(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.

This refers to the rules of federal court, as it relates to rules of procedure and admission evidence. Did you catch the key words?

Such rules (of court procedure and admission of evidence in a court case) ... SHALL NOT ABRIDGE ... ANY SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT (of the individual).

Why is that there? Because the Constitution DEMANDS that the government (which was created by the Constitution) MUST FOLLOW the natural law principle of the purpose of why a government exists in the first place. From the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths ... that in order to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The Constitution created a federal government, which derived its just (lawful) powers from the consent of the People. That document requires that the government may NOT infringe on the fundamental rights of the People. The only exception to that is that a particular individual's rights may be violated IF AND ONLY IF it is done through Due Process of Law (i.e. they must be prosecuted and given Due Process).

Much of the frustration that people have today is not understanding or not accepting that the federal government, in particular, has LIMITED AUTHORITY.

If you actually read any executive order, statute, regulation, etc. from the perspective of this LIMITED AUTHORITY, you will ALWAYS find that some sort of color of law is used to "make it look good," but in reality there is NO SUBSTANCE for those situations where they actually violate the law and only pretend to honor it.

A great example was the "CDC guideline" for wearing face masks on public transportation. First off, the CDC is a federal government agency and ONLY has authority (if it has any at all) for (a) federal government employees everywhere, and (b) the general population WITHIN THE FEDERAL TERRITORIES AND ENCLAVES. This means they do NOT have any authority within the States, generally.

When I read their official statement on their "guideline," I looked for their statement about where they claim legal authority for this action. Sure enough, it was near the bottom of their statement, and they cited specific sections of a specific federal statute.

So, I looked that up, and guess what? That law did NOT provide any authority for any agency to demand face masks on anyone. It was ONLY for (a) "items" (animals, plants, and inanimate objects) coming into the US that might be harmful, and (b) LOCATIONS under federal government control, such as ports of entry in sea ports.

Of course, neither the CDC nor the media mentioned the LIMITS of the jurisdication of the "guideline" (which was not even a regulation demanding anything, but merely a suggestion).

At this point in American history, I suspect that the vast majority of law school graduates themselves have no idea about the truth of federal jurisdication, just as most medical school graduates have no idea bout the truth of Germ Theory.

Now, more to your point, the idea that drug makers could be given "immunity" for harm caused to others is LAUGHABLE.

At MOST, the federal government can tell the courts not to prosecute a criminal or civil case against them. But, the federal government has LIMITED authority, and they have NO AUTHORITY to tell the state courts what to do or not do.

I see no reason why state courts could not hold the drug companies accountable for their criminal actions. And any judges or prosecutors who will not do their duty can be ... REPLACED.

Finally, most people have heard about the "Miranda warning" when a cop "reads you your rights" when arrested. What most people do not know is that the Miranda case was NOT specifically about reading someone their rights. That was the end result, but the actual key decision by the court was this:

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are concerned, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." -- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966).

In addition, the law on fraud is:

"Fraud vitiates every thing." -- US v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 (1876)

The reason that 28 USC 2072(b) exists is because the RULE OF LAW in America is that NO LEGISLATURE (including Congress), and NO AGENCY can issue any statute or regulation that would violate the fundamental rights of the People.

If more of us start thinking in these terms, and use the State governments to hold criminals accountable -- including the corrupt judges and attorneys, THEN we will begin the process of taking back our America.

And not one minute before then.

HeyTewdryg, I've enjoyed many of your posts on GAW, and tend to agree with you most of the time.

I do not disagree with you here, but I want to challenge you to consider thinking about all of this and similar issues from a different perspective.

When the Founding Fathers experienced the crimes against human (fundamental) rights that the British government was inflicting upon the colonists, they were likely pissed off at first, then it became outrageous, and then they took action.

I am not calling for a revolution, but simply to think about how they went through a mental process of changing their perspective from victim status to empowerment status.

We have been subjected to such abuse by employees of government for so long, that we have started to think from the victimhood viewpoint, when we should be thinking from the "we are the boss" viewpoint.

I recently ran across a very interesting federal statute, at 28 USC 2072. Note paragraph (b):

(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.

This refers to the rules of federal court, as it relates to rules of procedure and admission evidence. Did you catch the key words?

Such rules (of court procedure and admission of evidence in a court case) ... SHALL NOT ABRIDGE ... ANY SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT (of the individual).

Why is that there? Because the Constitution DEMANDS that the government (which was created by the Constitution) MUST FOLLOW the natural law principle of the purpose of why a government exists in the first place. From the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths ... that in order to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The Constitution created a federal government, which derived its just (lawful) powers from the consent of the People. That document requires that the government may NOT infringe on the fundamental rights of the People. The only exception to that is that a particular individual's rights may be violated IF AND ONLY IF it is done through Due Process of Law (i.e. they must be prosecuted and given Due Process).

Much of the frustration that people have today is not understanding or not accepting that the federal government, in particular, has LIMITED AUTHORITY.

If you actually read any executive order, statute, regulation, etc. from the perspective of this LIMITED AUTHORITY, you will ALWAYS find that some sort of color of law is used to "make it look good," but in reality there is NO SUBSTANCE for those situations where they actually violate the law and only pretend to honor it.

A great example was the "CDC guideline" for wearing face masks on public transportation. First off, the CDC is a federal government agency and ONLY has authority (if it has any at all) for (a) federal government employees everywhere, and (b) the general population WITHIN THE FEDERAL TERRITORIES AND ENCLAVES. This means they do NOT have any authority within the States, generally.

When I read their official statement on their "guideline," I looked for their statement about where they claim legal authority for this action. Sure enough, it was near the bottom of their statement, and they cited specific sections of a specific federal law.

So, I looked that up, and guess what? That law did NOT provide any authority for any agency to demand face masks on anyone. It was ONLY for (a) "items" (animals, plants, and inanimate objects) coming into the US that might be harmful, and (b) LOCATIONS under federal government control, such as ports of entry in sea ports.

Of course, neither the CDC nor the media mentioned the LIMITS of the jurisdication of the "guideline" (which was not even a regulation demanding anything, but merely a suggestion).

At this point in American history, I suspect that the vast majority of law school graduates themselves have no idea about the truth of federal jurisdication, just as most medical school graduates have no idea bout the truth of Germ Theory.

Now, more to your point, the idea that drug makers could be given "immunity" for harm caused to others is LAUGHABLE.

At MOST, the federal government can tell the courts not to prosecute a criminal or civil case against them. But, the federal government has LIMITED authority, and they have NO AUTHORITY to tell the state courts what to do or not do.

I see no reason why state courts could not hold the drug companies accountable for their criminal actions. And any judges or prosecutors who will not do their duty can be ... REPLACED.

Finally, most people have heard about the "Miranda warning" when a cop "reads you your rights" when arrested. What most people do not know is that the Miranda case was NOT specifically about reading someone their rights. That was the end result, but the actual key decision by the court was this:

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are concerned, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." -- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966).

In addition, the law on fraud is:

"Fraud vitiates every thing." -- US v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 (1876)

The reason that 28 USC 2072(b) exists is because the RULE OF LAW in America is that NO LEGISLATURE (including Congress), and NO AGENCY can issue any statute or regulation that would violate the fundamental rights of the People.

If more of us start thinking in these terms, and use the State governments to hold criminals accountable -- including the corrupt judges and attorneys, THEN we will begin the process of taking back our America.

And not one minute before then.

HeyTewdryg, I've enjoyed many of your posts on GAW, and tend to agree with you most of the time.

I do not disagree with you here, but I want to challenge you to consider thinking about all of this and similar issues from a different perspective.

When the Founding Fathers experienced the crimes against human (fundamental) rights that the British government was inflicting upon the colonists, they were likely pissed off at first, then it became outrageous, and then they took action.

I am not calling for a revolution, but simply to think about how they went through a mental process of changing their perspective from victim status to empowerment status.

We have been subjected to such abuse by employees of government for so long, that we have started to think from the victimhood viewpoint, when we should be thinking from the "we are the boss" viewpoint.

I recently ran across a very interesting federal statute, at 28 USC 2072. Note paragraph (b):

(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.

This refers to the rules of federal court, as it relates to rules of procedure and admission evidence. Did you catch the key words?

Such rules (of court procedure and admission of evidence in a court case) ... SHALL NOT ABRIDGE ... ANY SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT (of the individual).

Why is that there? Because the Constitution DEMANDS that the government (which was created by the Constitution) MUST FOLLOW the natural law principle of the purpose of why a government exists in the first place. From the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths ... that in order to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The Constitution created a federal government, which derived its just (lawful) powers from the consent of the People. That document requires that the government may NOT infringe on the fundamental rights of the People ... other than a particular individual's rights IF AND ONLY IF it is done through Due Process of Law.

Much of the frustration that people have today is not understanding or not accepting that the federal government, in particular, has LIMITED AUTHORITY.

If you actually read any executive order, statute, regulation, etc. from the perspective of this LIMITED AUTHORITY, you will ALWAYS find that some sort of color of law is used to "make it look good," but in reality there is NO SUBSTANCE for those situations where they actually violate the law and only pretend to honor it.

A great example was the "CDC guideline" for wearing face masks on public transportation. First off, the CDC is a federal government agency and ONLY has authority (if it has any at all) for (a) federal government employees everywhere, and (b) the general population WITHIN THE FEDERAL TERRITORIES AND ENCLAVES. This means they do NOT have any authority within the States, generally.

When I read their official statement on their "guideline," I looked for their statement about where they claim legal authority for this action. Sure enough, it was near the bottom of their statement, and they cited specific sections of a specific federal law.

So, I looked that up, and guess what? That law did NOT provide any authority for any agency to demand face masks on anyone. It was ONLY for (a) "items" (animals, plants, and inanimate objects) coming into the US that might be harmful, and (b) LOCATIONS under federal government control, such as ports of entry in sea ports.

Of course, neither the CDC nor the media mentioned the LIMITS of the jurisdication of the "guideline" (which was not even a regulation demanding anything, but merely a suggestion).

At this point in American history, I suspect that the vast majority of law school graduates themselves have no idea about the truth of federal jurisdication, just as most medical school graduates have no idea bout the truth of Germ Theory.

Now, more to your point, the idea that drug makers could be given "immunity" for harm caused to others is LAUGHABLE.

At MOST, the federal government can tell the courts not to prosecute a criminal or civil case against them. But, the federal government has LIMITED authority, and they have NO AUTHORITY to tell the state courts what to do or not do.

I see no reason why state courts could not hold the drug companies accountable for their criminal actions. And any judges or prosecutors who will not do their duty can be ... REPLACED.

Finally, most people have heard about the "Miranda warning" when a cop "reads you your rights" when arrested. What most people do not know is that the Miranda case was NOT specifically about reading someone their rights. That was the end result, but the actual key decision by the court was this:

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are concerned, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." -- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966).

In addition, the law on fraud is:

"Fraud vitiates every thing." -- US v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 (1876)

The reason that 28 USC 2072(b) exists is because the RULE OF LAW in America is that NO LEGISLATURE (including Congress), and NO AGENCY can issue any statute or regulation that would violate the fundamental rights of the People.

If more of us start thinking in these terms, and use the State governments to hold criminals accountable -- including the corrupt judges and attorneys, THEN we will begin the process of taking back our America.

And not one minute before then.