Monday, June 8, 2020

New York Lawyers Need a Lesson in the Law

New York’s Bar Association wants to force people to be vaccinated “against” COVID-19. [1]
Those New York lawyers need a lesson in law. Forced vaccination is a crime against humanity. The universal right of Informed Consent has been the law for well over a century, starting with a famous New York case in 1914 (decided by Judge, later Justice Cardoza) holding that it is an assault and battery to engage in a medical intervention without Informed Consent, even if the intervention was intended to benefit the recipient. Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hosp.,105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914)
I delivered a paper at the Libertarian Scholars’ Conference, Kings College, Manhattan, last October which reviews the law of Informed Consent. That paper can be read here:
Those who misunderstand the law, such as the NY Bar Association, mis-cite Jacobson v Massachusetts as justification for forced vaccination.
When actually read that case is “old law” decided before there was a well-developed law of Informed Consent, and, can be read as authority for courts to protect people from forced vaccination. In that case the Supreme Court indicated it was not considering safety or lack thereof of vaccines, but only a narrow police power issue, and went on to note that the courts “are not without power” to intervene if a vaccine may harm a particular person. Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
There is, though, one important point that must be stressed:  your right to Informed Consent will be “deemed waived” (to use the legalese, in plain English, “ignored”) unless you assert it.  Learn more about asserting your right here:
Assert your right or it will be ignored.


Thursday, May 28, 2020

Trump Issues Internet Censorship Policy Order

President Trump has issued an Executive Order, which is a form of legally-binding directive to the bureaucrats in the Executive Department, regarding Social Media and private censorship of Internet speech.

It has long been the position of the Internet service provider platforms that they are protected from liability for what their users post on their platforms or send through their services.

The Executive Order is here:

It provides, in part:
It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet.  Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)).  47 U.S.C. 230(c).  It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints. {Emphasis added.]
The Order continues:
In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable."
When carefully read, the Trump Executive Order does nothing new.

Section 230 of the 1996 internet statute does not exempt internet service providers from liability for censoring political opinion speech. I have argued that there is a legal basis for holding them responsible under the RICO and other laws.

I argued:
The social media corporations are in law “creatures of the state” existing by virtue of the grant of the corporate franchise which permits such entities privileges that are not applicable to purely private persons, including the limited liability privilege and the privilege of selling shares to the public as a joint stock company, to profit from the use of the Internet Public Utility. While these companies appear, to some degree, as “private” businesses, they act over the Internet Public Utility. They act “under color of law” and are therefore more akin to government agencies than to private actors.
The law does, however, exempt those companies that profit from using the internet commons from liability for removing (censoring) a small category of speech from their platforms, including, for example, obscenity. 

The normal way to interpret lists in statutes is under the rubric of "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" -- expressing the one excludes the other.  Where a list includes specifics and ends in a general term, as does section (c)(2), that general term is restricted by the specifics.

That general "otherwise" clause cannot be extended to political opinion speech. 

The service providers were never exempt from responsibility if they chose to censor political opinion (or any opinion) speech.  They can no longer hide behind a law that never protected them in the first place.

Expect litigation against the private censors.  

The huge crony corporate Internet companies' safest position going forward will be to carefully avoid censoring political opinion speech!

And that is not a bad thing.

Thursday, May 14, 2020

"The Police Power of the State is Not without Limits"

The Governor of Kansas issued sweeping restrictions as part of a "lockdown" order predicated on the COVID-19 declared pandemic.  Those restrictions weighed more heavily on religious meetings than on other, secular, meetings.
"On April 18, federal Judge John Broomes issued a temporary restraining order against Kelly, finding that the churches were likely to prevail on their claim that her order violated the First Amendment rights of their parishioners 'to freely exercise their religion, including their right to attend worship services in their respective church facilities.' He brushed aside Kelly’s claim that her executive order treated religious institutions no differently than 'a large swath of both secular and non-secular behavior,' noting that the order expressly targeted churches to 'restrict religious activity.' Further, the judge observed, religious gatherings present no 'unique health risks' that could justify such discriminatory treatment. Kelly also tried to justify her actions by citing a 1905 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which involved a state law mandating smallpox vaccinations in the midst of a smallpox epidemic. But Broomes explained that 'even in such extreme cases as a public health crisis, the police power of the state is not without limits.'" -
I have long argued that Jacobson is not blanket authorization from the Supreme Court to mandate vaccines.  That argument is made in my General Brief in Support of Informed Consent, posted here:  In Jacobson the Court stated:
“if it be apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty that he is not at the time a fit subject of vaccination or that vaccination, by reason of his then condition, would seriously impair his health or probably cause his death"
In so far as Jacobson is used to justify forced vaccination, it is essentially old law, which does not take into account subsequent decisions. The Brief reviews those decisions, but two stand out.  One is Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hosp.,105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914) which held medical intervention without Informed Consent to be an assault and battery and the other is Missouri vs McNeely, 569 US 141 (2013)  wherein the Supreme Court stated:
Even a “…diminished expectation of privacy does not diminish the privacy interest in preventing a government agent from piercing the skin. And though a blood test conducted in a medical setting by trained personnel is less intrusive than other bodily invasions, this Court has never retreated from its recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests”
Judge John Broomes should be honored as a member of the Federal Bench who understands the powerful notion that "the police power of the state is not without limits."  Among those limits are those imposed by the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights as applied to the States by the 14th Amendment.

Tuesday, May 5, 2020

An Open Letter to Justin Amash: Speak Out for Informed Consent!

Justin Amash was a (G)OP member of the House of Representatives until he changed his party affiliation to Independent in 2019 and to Libertarian earlier this year.  He is the first sitting member of Congress to serve as a Libertarian Party member and has announced his candidacy for the LP nomination for President.  The LP is the only "third party" which will appear on all, or nearly all, state ballots this coming November.

The party's voter base has continued to grow.  See my previous blog entry:

Libertarian Party presidential vote totals for the past three presidential elections:

2008 - 523,715 - 0.40%
2012 - 1,275,971 - 0.99%
2016 - 4,488,914 - 3.28%

[Note: the 2016 total was greater than the difference between the two ruling parties.]

As my friend and mentor Maj. Gen. Bert Stubblebine reminded us four years ago, "Informed Consent is the defining issue of the 21st Century."

In that context, I have written the following note to Justin Amash -
   I am President of the Institute for Health Research - - and presented a paper on Informed Consent at the Libertarian Scholars' Conference this past September at King's College, NYC.
   In cooperation with the Natural Solutions Foundation I am polling all presidential candidates regarding the universal right of Informed Consent and mandatory vaccinations. 
   What is Rep. Amash's position on this important liberty issue?  Does he support the right of Informed Consent?  Does he support the Nuremberg Code?  We are publicizing the candidate's positions at this web page:  
   If I do not hear from you within ten days I will assume that Rep. Amash does not support the right of Informed Consent and will so report.
Let's see how strong is the candidate's commitment to freedom... even during a time of declared pandemic.

Friday, May 1, 2020

Mind Control and COVID

An Image After the Movie “They Live”
Through Anti-Mind Control Sunglasses
Note COVID and 5G on the Top. 
Which Image has the Mind Control Message? BOTH.
Get in line.
Don’t get too close.
Wear a mask.
No one should see you smile.
No eye-contact.
You might get arrested if you play Frisbee in a park with your child.
And certainly don’t visit a sick loved-one in hospital or hospice…
Trust the experts. The vaccine will save us. Then we can go back to normal. [2]
You get the message, don’t you?
This isn’t the first time “They” played the pandemic card. [3]
Are you old enough to remember the 1950s Polio Scares?  The 1976 First Swine Flu Panic (that vaccine killed 400; the flu killed no one)? The 2009 Second Swine Flu Panic — just ten years ago.  Led by Natural Solutions Foundation millions messaged Congress with “I Do Not Consent” emails and the vaxx mandates evaporated… no pandemic then either.
Did you know there was an Anti-Mask League headed by a doctor during the 1918/1919 Great Influenza Pandemic that killed 500,000 Americans; over a hundred million world wide? He told people masks did not help — it was better to breathe clean air and sunbathe than cower in isolation and fear.
Are you ready for the promised Second Wave? [4]

When the economy gets shut down again, leading to food shortages and millions dead?
Are you awake yet?
Or has the mind control worked?


Saturday, April 4, 2020

Analysis of Martial Law, the US Constitution and COVID-19

Martial Law "Drumhead Justice"

Martial Law is “the imposition of direct military control of normal civilian functions by a government, especially in response to a temporary emergency such as invasion or major disaster, or in an occupied territory.”[1]

There are powerful political forces centered on the World Health Organization (WHO) and its multi-billionaire ‘benefactors’, such as Bill Gates, currently calling for the imposition of what can only be called Martial Law to “control” their declared COVID-19 pandemic, the alleged “novel” coronavirus which, it is said, originated in Wuhan, China.

This despite the fact that evidence points sharply to its creation in South Carolina via US Government funding and subsequent sale to China and direct scientific support in Wuhan’s Level 4 Bio Security Lab by US scientists.

COVID-19 may be novel, but the Founders of the United States of America had considerable familiarity with Martial Law. 

The King of England’s military occupied American cities and subjected patriots to summary “justice” without due process of law.  The Declaration of Independence singles out the imposition of Martial Law among its catalogue of the King’s abuses that justified American independence: the King made “the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power...”[2]

Having experienced the horrors of summary and hostile ‘justice’ under Martial Law, it is not surprising that when it came time to write the Constitution limiting the powers of the new central government there was no provision in the Constitution permitting Martial Law.

There is, in addition, a further legal principle that limits Martial Law in the United States: the universal right of Informed Consent.  I have written extensively on this topic.[3]  Simply put, the individual right to bodily integrity absolutely trumps any forced medical treatment.[4] Vaccine mandates under Martial Law come within the purview of the Nuremberg Code, which, as a result of World War II, the Nuremberg Trials and the Geneva Conventions, are not only international treaty law, but US law as well, limiting the military power of governments, including the US government, to mandate medical interventions against subject populations.  Assert your right here:

You have the right to refuse Informed Consent even if you are under Martial Law.[5]

This What Martial Law-2020 Looks Like
Item: New Jersey Governor issues order authorizing state authorities to commandeer personal services, real and personal property.[6]
Item: California & New York Governors shut down the two largest state economies in the USA.[7]
Item: Pennsylvania Governor shuts all gun shops as “non-essential” and the PA Supreme Court finds that action not in violation of the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms; beer distributors, however, remain open.[8]
Item: Texas Governor reasserts de facto independence by requiring all visitors from the Northeast and Louisiana to undergo 14 day quarantine.[9]
Item: Rhode Island stops all vehicles from, or containing passengers from, New York and requires them to undergo 14 day quarantine. [10]
Item: Hospitals to triage by denying elder patients treatment in New York.[11]
Item: American central bank promises "unlimited" liquidity. A tsunami of fiat dollars.[12]
Late last month as part of the COVID Emergency Health Summit[13] I interviewed constitutional scholar and lawyer, Larry Becraft, JD (considered by many to be The Dean of the Patriot Lawyers). In that interview[14] we discussed the possibility and legality of Martial Law as a response to the declared pandemic. This article is based on that discussion and subsequent research.

Since there is no provision in the Constitution allowing Martial Law, how did President Lincoln seek to impose Martial Law?[15] How did President Wilson do so? How did FDR do so, going as far as incarcerating hundreds of thousands of American citizens of Japanese origin, for years?[16] Congress failed abysmally to protect our rights, that’s how.

While there is no clause in the Constitution allowing Martial Law, there is a clause limiting it.

That is the Habeas Corpus clause. The section reads:  “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”[17]  The “Writ” is a judicial process by which a Judge can examine why an agent of government may or may not have authority to imprison a person.  Martial Law, without suspending the Writ, would not render “the Military... superior to the Civil power.” Note also, the clause expresses only two specific grounds for suspending the Writ, and then only when “public safety” may require.  It does not include circumstances of contagion, although the Founders were familiar with repeated outbreaks of very serious diseases. Expressio unis est exclusio alte (Expressing the one this, excludes the other).[18]

This clause is part of the Constitutional Article on the powers of Congress and acts to limit any congressional power permitting the President, as Commander in Chief, to impose Martial Law. In any event, this clause, like the rest of the original Constitution, was amended by the Bill of Rights. Therefore, whatever power Congress or the President have in this area is limited by the First Ten Amendments, including the right to keep and bear arms, and all of the other protections of the Bill of Rights.

President Trump, so far, has carefully avoided imposing Federal dictates on the States during the declared pandemic and his National Emergency Declaration.[19] Rather, as seen during his nightly television appearances, he defers to the State Governors to impose restrictions and take the other steps catalogued at the beginning of this article.  He has correctly implied that the President does not have the power to close state schools, public accommodations, businesses and the like. Instead, the State Governors, issuing their own Emergency Regulations under the plenary police power of the States, have imposed restrictions that look a lot like Martial Law.

We know from the Civil War era Ex parte Milligan case (cited above) that “martial rule can never exist when the courts are open.”  Therefore we are particularly concerned that the courts in many areas are not open.[20]  The Department of Justice is apparently seeking Congressional approval for emergency powers that would, in effect, suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus, as though the country were in a state of rebellion or invasion (by a foreign power).[21]

Piecemeal Martial Law is being imposed state-by-state, while the court systems are engaging in self-isolation.  We are faced with a “perfect storm” -- perhaps leading to world-wide mandatory COVID vaccinations in just a few months, while elders and people with serious medical conditions suffer from a declared pandemic, and much of the world economy has been stopped by government fiat.

While Martial Law has no Constitutional authority, we certainly seem to be in a condition of Martial Law and it is only likely to get worse unless Americans assert their right to go about their normal business without harassment by over-zealous public officials.

When all is said and done the death rate in 2020 will be little different from the death rate the year before, unless economic collapse accelerates. That people are dying “with COVID” is not the same as people dying “from” COVID.  Keep that distinction in mind as you seek to discern truth from government and its media disinformation in a time of declared plague.

I continually post updated information at  and urge you to visit often and share it on social media as widely as possible.

Share this message with this link:

[4] Even a “…diminished expectation of privacy does not diminish the… privacy interest in preventing a government agent from piercing the… skin. And though a blood test conducted in a medical setting by trained personnel is less intrusive than other bodily invasions, this Court has never retreated from its recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests…” Missouri vs McNeely, 569 US 141, 15 (2013)
[15]Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled the application of military tribunals to citizens when civilian courts are still operating is unconstitutional. In this particular case, the Court was unwilling to give President Abraham Lincoln's administration the power of military commission jurisdiction, part of the administration's controversial plan to deal with Union dissenters during the American Civil War. Justice David Davis, who delivered the majority opinion, stated that "martial rule can never exist when the courts are open" and confined martial law to areas of "military operations, where war really prevails", and when it was a necessity to provide a substitute for a civil authority that had been overthrown.”
[16] The Supreme Court recently opined that the Japanese Exclusion was “gravely wrong” when decided and not precedent for future legal decisions.

Tuesday, March 31, 2020

Can the USA Survive the COVID Pandemic?

Can the Constitution and the
United States of America Survive the Pandemic?

The Agenda 2020 Plannedemic

At the beginning of 2020 that question would have been just plain crazy.  Even those who learned of the December 30, 2019 announcement from China of a "novel" coronavirus popping up in the City of Wuhan would have agreed.

After all, wasn't the USA in the middle of the biggest boom in its history, with the stock market reaching unheard of heights, record employment, and record (low) unemployment, even among vulnerable groups?  Wasn't America ‘Great Again’?

Remember, back in 1991, just months before the collapse of the Soviet Union it was also considered crazy to believe that the largest empire in human history was about to vaporize.  Hadn't the head of the Red Army recently declared that the "correlation of forces" had decidedly moved in favor of the USSR, making it great again?

No doubt there were Communist Party apparatchiks who went home from their big Moscow offices, cooked chicken from the Kremlin commissary in hand, without a clue what was about to happen, the day before the Red Flag was hauled down.  The Evil Empire fell because it could not sustain the structure of a modern society.  It fell because younger and younger Russian males were dying off. It fell because the individual States which constituted the Union saw an opportunity to finally break free.

And here it is, a bit over a quarter century later:  it appears that the extraordinary capitalist engine of the US economy is being plunged into the same kind of collapse by its governments. 

We learned from Natural Solutions Foundation Founding President, Maj. Gen. Bert Stubblebine's final warnings to America three years ago that American males are dying off younger and younger.[1]  Now we living (and dying) through a brutal ‘plannedemic’ (a planned pandemic) aimed at killing off the most useless of the “useless eaters.”– the elderly and the sick. [2]

At the same time, individual States in our Union are asserting independence in ways not seen since the Civil War, over a hundred and fifty years ago.  Today Rhode Island is registering any automobiles coming into the State from pandemic stricken New York, requiring anyone coming from New York to undergo 14 days self-quarantine.[3]

The Governor of Texas, harking back to its history as an independent Republic, reasserted de facto independence from the United States, by ordering anyone entering Texas from the pandemic areas of the Northeast and from Louisiana to undergo 14 days quarantine.[4]

The Governor of Pennsylvania threatened to shut down gun shops and at the same time the leaders of the House of Representatives have once again proposed to gut the 2nd Amendment: "The destruction of the second amendment will be complete if this monstrosity of a bill is ever passed!" - HR 5717 (Federal fire arms licensing in violation of the 2nd Amendment prohibition on infringing the individual right to keep and bear arms.) [5]

The Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution assures a free and open marketplace among the States. However, the largest “Blue” States, New York and California, have turned their backs from that part of the Constitution by shuttering their economic activities by executive fiat.

This dictatorial, government-triggered economic crisis popped the stock market bubble and drove down share prices and triggered unprecedented market chaos. Meanwhile more than 3,800,000 American workers were laid-off in barely a week.  BAM! There went the Trump Boom.

Other States, with perhaps better weather, or at least a more disbursed population with better immune systems, the "Red State" belt, in the middle of the country, have been much less hammered by the declared pandemic and they choose to keep their economies going as best as they can.

While traditional brick-and-mortar commerce has been destroyed, internet commerce is booming. The dietary supplement and natural remedies businesses are experiencing rapid Internet expansion. Government has created an unnecessary economic crisis as part of the “plannedemic.”

Tragically all of this is avoidable.  We have simple, natural ways to confront and defeat viral threats. The strong science is being intentionally ignored. Information about natural approaches to immune system support, like Nano Silver 10 PPM, Vitamins D3, C and immune support minerals like Zinc have been sidelined and suppressed -- while the vaccine hoax is hyped and our universal right of Informed Consent ignored.

Can the United States or the United States Constitution survive these assaults?  Can you and your loved ones? We hope and pray so.

We are, as the old Chinese curse puts it, "living in interesting times..."

Share this message with this link:


Tuesday, February 18, 2020

Who is Telling the Truth about COVID-19?

COVID-19: Who’s Telling You the Truth
And Who’s Not?
Misinformation… Disinformation…

Correcting COVID-19 Misinformation
Truth About Coronavirus Web Site

Is there anything we can believe about Mass Media reporting about the Chinese Coronavirus — COVID-19?  We suspect not. 
Some of the misinformation is fairly innocuous, such as the Fox News report about cats in China wearing sanitary face masks. [1]  Some reports suggest that the novel virus, with a 3% kill rate and great virulence, developed at an “exotic” meat market in Wuhan China.  Others accuse the accidental — or maybe intentional — release of a weaponized virus from a Red Army research facility in the same city.  This seems linked to coronavirus experiments being conducted, in part, by Chinese nationals at a Canadian laboratory.
We are following these developments and have documented recent data points at

We are not particularly following the alleged numerical spread of the virus since the figures released by the Chinese Government do not seem accurate.  A cover-up appears to have been in place since late last year, before the Western Media first began to report.  If you want to see graphs about the number of cases and deaths, these are readily available online.
What we are covering are the hard facts of causation and the urgent facts of protection and response.
We note that the World Health Organization, WHO, during the 2014 Ebola outbreak issued a statement that, during a pandemic, it is ethical to try even unverified interventions that may offer potential benefit. [2]

In that spirit, provides links to approaches that may or may not help.  For example, sanitary face masks, whether worn by cats or people, are critically discussed.  [3]
While Truth About Coronavirus may be hard to discern in the Media of Mass Deception, the sources we rely upon at  have shown themselves to be, in our view, more truthful than the misinformation and disinformation being peddled over the Mass Media.
You are urged to share the link with everyone.

And let us know what you’ve discovered about the misinformation and disinformation that you are finding.  We rely on an aware public to express the Truth About Coronavirus.
Join Dr. Rima’s powerful new email list to be assured that you will remain in the loop. And urge all your circles of influence to do the same. 
Knowledge is protection.  Connection is knowledge. 
“In the particular circumstances of this outbreak, and provided certain conditions are met, the panel reached consensus that it is ethical to offer unproven interventions with as yet unknown efficacy and adverse effects, as potential treatment or prevention. Ethical criteria must guide the provision of such interventions. These include transparency about all aspects of care, informed consent, freedom of choice, confidentiality, respect for the person, preservation of dignity and involvement of the community.” [Emphasis added.]

Monday, February 3, 2020

Patricia Finn - The Good Health Lawyer
Obtains Vaccine TRO

Medically Fragile NY Child Back In School
With No Vaccines
Thanks to Attorney Patricia Finn, Esq.
Rockland County, New York:  Counsel Patricia Finn, The Good Health Lawyer [1] has saved a medically fragile child from what his pediatrician says is “certain damage” following vaccination, by arguing successfully in the New York Supreme Court that New York State does not have the power to substitute a bureaucrat’s decision for a patient’s physician.
Arguing that a physician, as a “learned intermediary,” has the right to issue a medical exemption for a patient and the State has the obligation to honor that exemption, Counsel Finn has scored a major health freedom victory for the moment.
Several well-known and well-funded law firms have not been able to achieve what Counsel Finn succeeded in establishing in this case.
This victory is the first to validate the important principle of the physician as “Learned Intermediary” and to achieve a Temporary Restraining Order overturning the State’s attempt to force vaccination on this child.
In both California and New York, the largest forced-vaccine states, vaccine freedom of choice has been attacked in two ways.  First, the state legislatures have abolished long-standing religious and/or conscientious exemptions and second, the bureaucracies in both states have made obtaining a formal Medical Excuse virtually impossible.  New York’s legislature and governor pushed the new vaccine exemption restrictions into law at the end of the 2019 legislative session in one day, without public hearings.
It is believed they have intentionally tried to make it so difficult that they have undercut the protected relationship between doctor and patient. This violates the universal right of Informed Consent by preventing physicians, as Learned Intermediaries, from uttering their true opinions regarding the safety of vaccines for their patients.
The child in this case was certified vaccine-fragile since his doctor said he could expect serious adverse reactions to further vaccination.  It is important to note that the child’s doctor believes in vaccination for the general populace, and vaccinates his own children,  yet, exercising his best medical judgment, affirmed that this child should not be vaccinated.  Under New York’s new rule the physician’s learned opinion was disregarded and the school system, despite the damage that was likely to result for the child, rejected the exemption.  In other words, the state wanted a school bureaucrat to overturn the physician’s protection of his patient.
This flies in the face of settled United States law. For over a century US courts have held they have the power to intervene against forced vaccination “…if it be apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty that he is not at the time a fit subject of vaccination or that vaccination, by reason of his then condition, would seriously impair his health or probably cause his death.” Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
Counsel Finn’s successful effort to protect this child with a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) assures this child access to the free public education guaranteed to him by the laws of New York, without surrendering his right to protection from what US and international courts have repeatedly called “unavoidably unsafe” vaccines.
The attempts by States like New York and California to illegally force parents to choose between their objections to vaccination — their universal right of Informed Consent — or the public education guaranteed to their children is an imposition of what the Federal Courts call an “unconstitutional condition.” No state has power to condition a public benefit on the surrender of a right.
In this case New York is learning that important lesson thanks to Counsel Finn and the determined parents willing to protect their child.
All of us have the right of Informed Consent, if and only if we assert it properly. If you do not assert that right it will be “deemed waived.”
Counsel Finn has announced plans to institute additional litigation to further test the legal validity of New York’s new vaccine exemption restrictions.
Further Information:
To learn more about how to assert that right for yourself and your loved ones, click here:
Links to Counsel Finn’s web sites:

Sunday, February 2, 2020

Coronavirus and Bioweapons

The Plot Thickens:
Who Weaponized the Chinese Coronavirus?
Update:  New Link to Coronavirus Aggregation Page
As I was driving about today, doing my Saturday chores, the car radio news and my cell phone were both buzzing about the Coronavirus outbreak in China. Over a couple hours the claimed death toll rose from 259 to 296 while the known infected rose to over twelve thousand, involving all parts of China and dozens of other countries, including the USA.
While the death toll climbed the World Wide Web Thought Control System went into hyper-drive. For example, libertarian economics news aggregation site Zero Hedge was banned from Twitter for tweeting the name and location of a Chinese scientist who was allegedly involved in manipulation of the Coronavirus genome. [1]
In an earlier OST piece I discussed the 2007 patent regarding coronaviruses and vaccines. [2]. Yes, the US government owns that patent.
While that fact data point is instructive, suggesting US involvement somehow connected to Chinese scientists (and thus to the Chinese authorities). One rumor even has it that the coronavirus outbreak, primarily centered in the central China city of Wuhan, is a false flag feint — meant to take attention away from another threat to the health of Wuhan citizens. Wuhan, so goes the story, is the first Chinese city to be fully 5G (an advanced wireless system held to be a risky technology by its critics).
Let’s take a look at some more odd data points from the Internet frenzy of the past few days. It was Natural Solutions Foundation’s Founding President, Maj. Gen. Bert Stubblebine who always told us to aggregate the data points and remain open-minded to what the data shows.
Item: “Coronavirus Contains HIV Insertions Stoking Fears Over Artificially Created Bioweapon [3] — “The theory is that China obtained the coronavirus via a Canadian research program, and started molding it into a bioweapon at the Institute of Virology in Wuhan. Politifact pointed the finger at Zero Hedge…”
Item: “New Coronavirus in China Is Treated With HIV Meds” [4] — “Health officials in China are including two HIV meds as treatment for pneumonia caused by the new coronavirus, reports Bloomberg News. Specifically, the country’s National Health Commission in Beijing recommends the HIV drug Kaletra, which is manufactured by AbbVie and is also marketed as Aluvia.”
We have been warned for decades that it is inevitable that humanity will suffer a global pandemic far worse than the Influenza Pandemic that started at the end of World War One and killed more people than the War had — between 50 and a hundred million. [5]
Looking into the epidemic history of the past several millennia in Eurasia, it appears that a world plague has struck on average every half millennium. Seven hundred years ago it was the Bubonic Plague that started in 1346 CE and may have killed a third of the population of Europe. Before that, the Plague of Justinian killed 40% of Eurasia’s population in 541 CE and before that, the Antonine Plague killed 30% of Eurasia around 165 CE. Is this about to happen again? Is it just a natural outcome of the history of our species or is it something more sinister?
Is the Chinese Coronavirus, able to spread quickly through casual human contact, before symptoms are apparent, destined to spread across the world — Literally flown from city to city by modern transportation?
Do the data points suggest that there are two stages of infection: an acute stage that has a 2 or 3% death rate and is very easily transmitted, and a chronic version more like HIV infection with a much higher, but long-term, death rate?
Is the Chinese Coronavirus a weaponized virus?  Who weaponized it? WHO? We may know over the next few weeks.
As we await history’s verdict, however, this comment from Rima Laibow, MD, is to be considered:
“SARS and MERS are also coronaviruses. My understanding that such viruses are easy to weaponize. General Bert warned us years ago about the weaponization of influenza-like viruses to further the globalist depopulation agenda. This is occurring as the World Health Organization prepares to declare a World Health Emergency which would give WHO near total control of the planet. This is, of course, unnecessary, since the powerful support that Nano Silver 10 PPM provides for your immune system operates in the presence of coronavirus.” Rima Laibow, MD [6]