Saturday, July 27, 2019

This is What Tyranny Looks Like


New York State's School Bureaucracy is going after vaccine resister parents with a vengeance. 

We previously reported on the NY school district that sent letters to vaccine conscientious objector families threatening to "turn them over" to the State's "Child Protective [sic] Service" (CPS) -- an agency widely believed to be a recruiting grounds for pedophilia.  See: http://www.opensourcetruth.com/ny-school-district-to-parents-vaxx-or-we-call-child-protective-services/ 

Since the New York State legislature repealed long-standing religious conscientious objection exemptions to vaccine mandates (in one day, without public hearings) earlier this year, the State's various agencies have felt empowered to punish parents who seek to preserve their conscientious objections to forced vaccination.  While the State's highest courts and the federal courts have not ruled on the legality of this legislative repeal, the agencies are frightening parents by threatening them with dire consequences. In addition to the CPS threat, and the targeting of the Orthodox Jewish Community in New York [see: http://www.opensourcetruth.com/the-persecution-of-vaccine-conscientious-objectors/ ] we now have at least one case where the school nurse has taken the position that even the universal right to Informed Consent no longer applies in New York. Although some may argue that the New York legislature had legal authority to abolish an exemption it had granted decades ago, this is the first time we have seen any member of the medical community assert that the State can authorize school authorities to ignore Informed Consent.

It is particularly distressing that the school officials who take this position possibly do not know that they stand "in the Docket" at Nuremberg with the Nazi doctors who were convicted after World War II of ignoring Informed Consent. The Nuremberg Code, binding on the United States and every State in the Union, is quite clear:
“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion..." http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html
Nonetheless, the school nurse told one conscientious objector in writing: "Our OCFS licensor came in this morning so I was able to talk directly to her. She said that the advanced directive that you have would not be valid related to the fact that it is not signed by a doctor..." Of course, the whole point of an advanced medical directive is to tell the doctors and other health care providers  about what a person is giving Informed Consent.

To require a doctor to sign the advanced directive completely negates its purpose. It is not about permission from a doctor or State agent; it is about each person's universal right to grant or refuse Informed Consent, for any reason, or no reason at all. Period. End of issue. Here is what Wikipedia says about the status of such a directive:  it "is a legal document in which a person specifies what actions should be taken for their health... In the U.S. it has a legal status in itself.." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_healthcare_directive 

Since we know from current Supreme Court cases that one must assert the right of Informed Consent or it will be deemed waived,  we know that allowing State education officials to ignore an expression of Informed Consent (or, more specifically, an expression of refusal to grant Informed Consent) is a clear violation of the First Amendment. In one recent case the Court opined, Missouri v McNeely (2013):
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…” (page 15; emphasis added).
Unless you assert your right to Informed Consent, it will be ignored.  Learn more here:  https://tinyurl.com/AVDcard

Tuesday, July 9, 2019

Lawyers Against Mandatory Vaccines

OPEN LETTER TO LAWYERS AGAINST MANDATORY VACCINES

4 July 2019

Dear Colleague,


Several vaccine freedom of choice advocates in New York have asked me to coordinate a volunteer committee of lawyers to help with litigation that will test the constitutionality of the repeal of long-standing vaccine religious exemptions. This email is to encourage you to join that effort.

Please reply to this email and I will add you to the Committee list.

One day. No public hearings... That's all it took for the legislature and governor of New York to slash religious conscientious exemptions available to citizens for decades, since the first creeping school vaccine mandates. Is the State, acting under color of law, violating Federal law protecting civil rights? Does repealing statutory exemptions leave the universal right to Informed Consent in jeopardy? Can a State force parents to make the choice of a State constitution-guaranteed "free public education" or the right to Informed Consent -- or is that choice an "unconstitutional condition"?

Some NY school districts are threatening vaccine objecting families with reporting them to Child Protection Services: http://www.opensourcetruth.com/ny-school-district-to-parents-vaxx-or-we-call-child-protective-services/

I know we are on the same side on this: vaccines are dangerous; vaccine mandates are unconscionable. Through recent FOIA litigation RFK Jr showed that every vaxx deployed in the USA has been illegally approved under the 1986 Childhood Vaccine injury Act.

Based on this revelation Kent Heckenlively Esq, Dr. Laibow and I filed a formal Regulations.gov Petition with FDA demanding the suspension of all vaccine drug approvals until the law is obeyed. Docket FDA-2019-P-1130-0001. This filing is intended to exhaust our administrative remedies. You can read the actual Petition at https://tinyurl.com/stopillegalvaccines - just scroll down.

Meanwhile Patti Finn Esq. in Rockland County and RFK Jr's firm in NYC are preparing injunction actions to stay the repeal of the exemptions. Counsel Finn's funding page is here: https://gogetfunding.com/vaccine-rights-legal-defense-fund/

We can stop the mandates dead in their tracks through these powerful legal challenges. The purpose of the Lawyers' Committee is to support these challenges.

Here is a short video featuring Counsel Kent, Dr. Rima and me:  https://www.brighteon.com/6030084859001

More about the law of Informed Consent here: http://drrimatruthreports.com/a-brief-for-informed-consent/

Each free person has the absolute right to refuse any medical intervention for reasons of conscience, or for no reason at all. No legislature has power to restrict the right of Informed Consent. More about asserting Informed Consent here:  https://tinyurl.com/AVDcard

If that conscientious objection is based on personal religious beliefs then the Federal Civil Rights Acts and their requirement that government accommodate religious beliefs come into play. I’ve written about that here: http://www.opensourcetruth.com/zero-vax-tolerance-violates-your-rights/

As then Attorney General Sessions said in a formal Attorney General Opinion:

“Laws protecting religious freedom and conscience rights are just empty words on paper if they aren’t enforced. No one should be forced to choose between helping sick people and living by one’s deepest moral or religious convictions, and the new division will help guarantee that victims of unlawful discrimination find justice. For too long, governments big and small have treated conscience claims with hostility instead of protection, but change is coming and it begins here and now.”

If the State government is persecuting religious vaccine conscientious objectors, complaints need to be filed with the Civil Rights Conscience Division, see: https://www.hhs.gov/conscience/index.html

As you can see, there is are significant legal issues at stake here.

Are you willing to be on an elist of attorneys who will be called upon to review proposed filings and provide advice, helping the pending litigation move forward?  Reply to this email: ralph.fucetola@gmail.com if you are willing to help.

Please provide me with the names and emails of other lawyers, retired lawyers and legal scholars or researchers who might want to join in this effort..
Direct link to this web page:  https://tinyurl.com/LawyerVaxxCommittee

Ralph Fucetola JD

PETITION TO FDA AT REGULATIONS.GOV
Docket FDA-2019-P-1130-0001

Friday, June 28, 2019

The Libra: Virtual Fiat Currency


Facebook sponsored the Libra Consortium which consists of a couple dozen of the most powerful internet players, like Google, PayPal and Uber.

 The article re-posted here, written by yours truly, explores the idea that the Libra is the antithesis of market-generated currency, and was just published at Mises.org:  "It's No Bitcoin: Facebook's Libra Currency Is Tied to Government Currencies"
"Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek was, as he says in the 1990 introduction to his Denationalization of Money: The Argument Refined, one of the chief “gold bugs” of the 20th century. And he reminded us, so long as politicians want to control money, gold-backed currency is essential to protect our liberty from the politics of inflation. ... "Hayek predicted that normal market forces would apply to the goods we use to facilitate exchange (“currencies”) if only governments would get out of the way. In a free market for money he suggested that major financial institutions would sponsor competing currencies, probably defined by "baskets" of commodities. He speculates on how the market would maintain the value and stability of such currencies, far better than any political system of legal tender. ..."
Contrary to Hayek's formulation for monetary stability,
"Facebook and Libra’s cooperating founding organizations (including PayPal, Visa, Uber …) hope to provide a stable cryptocurrency by tying it to a group of government currencies! ... Well, that’s it. Zuckerberg is no Hayek. And the Libra is no Bitcoin."
Read the full article here:

https://mises.org/wire/its-no-bitcoin-facebooks-libra-currency-tied-government-currencies

Monday, June 10, 2019

Did Congress and Trump "Legalize" THC in Hemp? USDA Thinks So!


A client just emailed me that he noticed a competitor was no longer advertising its CBD Hemp product, but told its customers they can still order, by phone, but not over the Internet.

Here is what I replied:

This is a hot issue right now.  I can understand why a North Carolina company may be doing this, as they have restrictive state laws.

However, an Opinion by the USDA's Chief Counsel, just a few days ago, says that all that is changing.  

Hemp, so long as it has less than .3% THC is no longer on the Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS) Schedule!  There are no restrictions on the percentage of CBDs.

Shortly no State (or Indian Tribe) will be able to prevent the interstate shipment of hemp. That means .3% THC hemp can be shipped to a state where THC "Marijuana" is legal and can be extracted to any desired potency (most legal THC vap products are over 95% THC).



More about that here:




Thursday, June 6, 2019

The Persecution of Vaccine Conscientious Objectors

#StopIllegalVaccines

Below is my contribution to a recent private email exchange among members of the New York Jewish Community concerned with asserting religious objections to vaccination, where various religious authorities disagree as to what religious law requires.

But first one cogent comment was:
     "Everything comes down to interpretation of the teachings of the religion. If you don't make representations that your religion opposes vax, then schools would want to refrain from adjudicating the different interpretations.  But maybe not a Jewish school or rabbi.
     Then it would fall in the lap of the judge or commissioner.  But the same holds. They will not wish to adjudicate the opposing interpretations.  If the statement contains facially reasonable deductions from scripture, it will be accepted and the judges will leave the inside to the squabbling Jews who are concerned.
     That was why NY CLS Pub Health §2164(9) was amended in 1989----to make dispositive solely what the applicant believes on her own terms, and not what different rabbis, ministers, or the Dalai Lama might believe.  
     This stemmed from Judge Wexler's 1987 determination that the prior statute had granted preferences solely to religions whose tenets are specifically opposed to vaccination.
     That essentially authorized a school, under the aegis of government authority, to judge the correct and valid interpretation of ecclesiastical questions. Wexler concluded that such government adoption of the religious conclusions of, for example, one rabbi over another, had exceeded the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  See: Sherr and Levy v. Northport East-Northport Union Free School District, 672 F. Supp. 81 (E.D.N.Y. 1987)." [ Gary Krasner - www.cfic.us/ ]

Gentlefolk,

When vaccine mandates were first imposed several generations ago, when there were only a couple vaccines alleged to prevent very serious diseases, the legislatures that imposed the regulation responded to constituent concerns by providing for various exemptions -- medical, religious and philosophical. Their successors have now decided to abrogate some or all of those exemptions.  If the government has power to mandate vaccines, it has power to define -- or eliminate -- any exemptions.  That is what legislatures across the nation are doing.  It may well be that they are motivated by avarice (Big Pharma pays well) and ignorance (since vaccine pseudo-science is as much "medicine" as blood-letting once was).  That's the danger of relying on democracy to define human rights.  You may find your conscience and the state's power brokers at odds.

However, we do not have to rely on grants of exemption from corrupt legislators to defend our conscientious objections to vaccination.

Wars have consequences and one of the consequences of the horrors of World War II was the enshrining of the universal right to Informed Consent in international law, binding on all nations.  I need not recount here the terrible deeds of Nazi and Japanese "doctors."  History has recorded that for all time.

As a result of the wartime experience, after the International Tribunal in Nuremberg completed its denunciation of the main Nazi war criminals, the United States continued with what are called the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, under a US Military Tribunal.  One of those trials was the infamous Nazi Doctors Trial.  Under the Geneva Conventions, war criminals must be tried under law as it existed at the start of the war. So the United States prosecutors proposed, and the Court accepted, the Nuremberg Code as a restatement of the Law of Informed Consent as it applied to all countries, since those same Conventions say that the law applied must be a law that applies to the victors as well as the prisoners.  By action of the US Government, the Nuremberg Code applies to all of us.  Later pronouncements, such as the Geneva and Helsinki Declarations and the UN Bioethics Declaration repeat the terms of the Code, as does United States IRB statutes.

What does the Code say?

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion..."

 More about the law of Informed Consent here:  http://drrimatruthreports.com/a-brief-for-informed-consent/

Thus, each free person has the absolute right to refuse any medical intervention for reasons of conscience, or for no reason at all.  No legislature has power to restrict the right of Informed Consent.

If that conscientious objection is based on personal religious beliefs then the Civil Rights Acts and their requirement that government accommodate religious beliefs come into play.

I've written about that here:  http://www.opensourcetruth.com/zero-vax-tolerance-violates-your-rights/

As then Attorney General Sessions said in a formal Attorney General Opinion:

“Laws protecting religious freedom and conscience rights are just empty words on paper if they aren’t enforced. No one should be forced to choose between helping sick people and living by one’s deepest moral or religious convictions, and the new division will help guarantee that victims of unlawful discrimination find justice. For too long, governments big and small have treated conscience claims with hostility instead of protection, but change is coming and it begins here and now.”

If the State government is persecuting religious vaccine conscientious objectors, it's time to complain to the Civil Rights Conscience Division, right here:  https://www.hhs.gov/conscience/index.html

That's what I think you ought to do.

Sunday, June 2, 2019

Politico Reports: The "Two Party" System and Vaccine Mandates


Sign the Revised White House Petition Here:  https://tinyurl.com/stopillegalvaccines

From Politico*:  "Most Republicans are rejecting Democrat-led state bills to tighten childhood immunization laws in the midst of the worst measles outbreak in two decades, alarming public health experts who fear the nation could become as divided over vaccines as it is over global warming..."

My comment to Politico:
Republicans and Democrats usually "agree" on whatever will benefit the crony corporate drug companies that provide both branches of the ruling party with so much political funding, so I'm not ready to praise one or the other.  
The real issue here is whether either will stand for the universal right of Informed Consent and back-off the growing demands of Big Pharma that the evident failure of their risk-free (to their bottom line) vaxx program means we "need" more vaccines... more booster shots... more mandates. "Bailing out" the drug companies will mean more dead and injured children, the victims of the uninsurable risks of vaccination pseudo-science. 
I do not believe that either branch of the ruling party will stand strongly for freedom of choice unless strong Push Back by those who understand that vaccination is pseudo-science.  
Robert F. Kennedy Jr proved, late last year, that the FDA has failed to obey the 1986 Childhood Vaccine Safety Act and has failed, for over 30 years to provide Congress with even one of the required annual Vaccine Safety Reports. 
Why? Because Vaccines are not safe! They are, according to our courts, "unavoidably unsafe."  
What can you do? Tell Trump here: https://tinyurl.com/stopillegalvaccines. And while you are at it, unless your assert your right to Informed Consent; assert it or it will be deemed waived. 
No legislature has power to abolish Informed Consent, protected by international law. While legislatures may have power to renege on the religious and other exemptions written into vaccine laws decades ago, they don't have power to reverse the right of Informed Consent, protected under the Nuremberg Code. 
Assert your right here: https://tinyurl.com/AVDcard

* https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/16/republican-reject-democrat-vaccines-1361277

Sunday, May 19, 2019

Social Media Must Honor Freedom of Speech


SUING THE SOCIAL MEDIA FOR CENSORING SPEECH
N. Rockwell – Freedom of Speech

While some might consider my expressed views[1] on what happened last year to Alex Jones and www.InfoWars.com, namely, being “banned” [a term that reminds me of the evils of Apartheid] by nearly all the major social media during one 24 hour period, a conspiracy theory, I assert that the evidence does support the theory that these major corporate actors were acting in concert and that their actions violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)[2] and the 14th Amendment.[3]  

The sordid story continues and gets worse.  This past week Facebook imposed a "total ban" on even mentioning Alex Jones (and Rev. L. Farrakhan and others). Unless you preface your reference to the banned with the "compelled opinion" that you renounce the banned speakers, your reference to these 'Unpersons" will be likewise banned. Shades of the Soviet Encyclopedia with its repeated airbrushing of historic photos and policy of "banning" any mention of the victims of Stalinist repression.


Facebook hasn't hired any hit squads (yest) so I suppose American social media isn't quite Stalinesque, but I think anyone so “banned” by the Deep State Social Media Crony Corporations has good grounds to sue.
We are told that the “bannings” were not unlawful censorship since the banning entities are all “private companies”, not subject to the First Amendment’s injunction, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…” I disagree.  The companies may be private enterprises, but they are public actors, acting “under color of law” through their state corporate franchise and their use of the Internet Public Utility, or Public Commons, for commercial profit.
The First Point of Law to note is that the Supreme Court has applied the language of the First Amendment to not just Acts of Congress, but to any actions of the Federal Government, and, through the 14th Amendment, to the States as well[4].

The Second Point of Law to note is that Internet Access is protected under the First Amendment. In the 2017 case of Packingham v North Carolina the Supreme Court held that “a fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak…”[5]
The Third Point of Law to note is that the 14th Amendment provides that States may not make or enforce any law that abridges the rights of US citizens.  This includes, of course, the granting of the corporate franchise to private companies such that they may act in violation of our Fundamental Rights while using our Internet Public Utility.
The Internet was initially established by the US Government for communication among scientists and remains a “public utility” although used by private persons to communicate and by publicly registered and traded companies to profit from our communications.
As a libertarian I certainly have no objection that private companies profit from the Internet commons.  Everyone ought to be free to seek profit on the Internet. But there is, I submit, a difference between being a private company and being a private actor.  As an individual, when I communicate with business associates, relatives and friends on the Internet my communications are private communications and my expectation of privacy should be respected.
However, although he social media corporations are private companies, they are not private actors.  They 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.

That these entities engage in substantial commerce with the government, receiving tax funds for certain contracts including the providing of data about users to government, and benefiting from the use of the Internet Public Utility further substantiates their status as agents of government power.

As such, they must be bound by the restrictions of the First Amendment and cannot discriminate among their users on the basis of the content of the Speech which the users express over the Internet Public Utility.

When several of these quasi-private companies act in apparent concert to ban the Speech of a particular user over the Internet Public Utility they do so “under color of law” and in violation of the Freedom of Speech of both the speaker and those who seek to hear.  Both Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association are restricted through the exercise of authority depending on government. This is unlawful. The courts are surely not without power to redress this grievance.

The effect of the unlawful actions of the companies is to tortuously interfere with valuable commercial relationships, between the attempting speaker and intended hearer, causing substantial financial harm and damages. BTW, I note, currently, Facebook still accepts ads from certain “banned” companies. But not from others, furthering their discriminatory use of the Internet Public Utility

Such unlawful acts, and the unlawful combination (“conspiracy”) to engage in such acts, may violate the provisions of RICO.  The companies that are among the most egregious banners include PayPal, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and YouTube.  

Some of these same companies are “making pacts with the devil” by developing special government-censored versions of their services for Communist-controlled China, enabling that tyrannical regime to impose and maintain its social control system on the world’s most populous country.

In the United States, the targeting of individuals because of the content of the Speech they seek to express over the Internet Public Utility can be seen as a type of commercial extortion forbidden under RICO. Conspiracies to do so may provide the second “act of racketeering activity” to invoke RICO.

It is therefore my professional opinion, to a reasonable degree of professional certainty, that the “banned” individuals and companies have valid grounds to sue the social media companies that have “banned” them from the Internet Public Utility.

Such litigation could be started in the Federal District Court wherein the headquarters of any of the corporate actors might be located. But it is not just in America where Free Speech is threatened.

Our Freedom of Speech is under a world wide web of attack.
While various authoritarian states make no effort to hide direct censorship of speech, the “advanced democracies” are more subtle. Germany, with no absolute constitutional protection for Free Speech, is contemplating empowering Internet Service Providers to refuse service to “hate groups.” At the same time the large international corporate controllers of the Internet, such as YouTube, Facebook and Google, are already escalating content controls to enforce “political correctness” – if you don’t follow the Party Line, you cannot be heard.
      First they came for hate expressers and banned them from Facebook. No one protested.
      Then they came for Alex Jones and banned him from YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, all in a day. No one protested.
      Then they came for… You know the rest… they came for you and me, and no one was left to protest.
These supposed private Social Media Companies are actually exercising government authority -- just as much as if they had been the “private” Tax Farmers of Ancient Rome.
They are the privatized agents of Deep State control and censorship. They exercise this control on several levels. Each of these mega-corporations is, in fact and in law, “a creature of the state.” It is created by registration with government that gives it authorities (such as limited liability to third parties) which it could not exercise as a truly private association. The law further protects these Internet information carriers from liability for others’ information they carry.[6]
If the same Rule of Law that applies to truly private actors applied to governments and their crony corporations, “content control” efforts would be understood to be exactly what they are: censorship.
Real free market competition and technological progress would rapidly make the near-monopoly power of Google and Facebook, et al. irrelevant. 
If the same Rule of Law that ought to apply to Government Censorship – that there can be no such law[7] – applied to the crony corporations, “private” censorship could not continue.

Ralph Fucetola JD
www.VitaminConsultancy.com

19 May 2019



[3] “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” – 14th Amendment
[4] “Beginning with Gitlow v. New York (1925) the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to states—a process known as incorporation—through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth  Amendment.” 
[5] Ibid. “In Packingham v.North Carolina (2017), the Supreme Court held that a North Carolina law prohibiting registered sex offenders from accessing various websites impermissibly restricted lawful speech in violation of the First Amendment. The Court held that ‘a fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more.’”
[6]Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a piece of Internet legislation. It provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an interactive computer service who publish information provided by others.https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resource-center/what-is-section-230-of-the-communication-decency-act-cda/
[7]Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...”  https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1.html

Thursday, May 16, 2019

98% of FDA Regulations are Illegal

Lawful regulations must be adopted in strict compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which starts with someone in the public submitting a Citizens Petition at Regulations.gov asking FDA to consider making a rule. 

The Petition usually has a 90 day comment period. Then the FDA can propose a draft regulation, which also has a comment period. It's important to comment since you must "exhaust your administrative remedies" if you want to complain (in Court) about the regulation after it's adopted. Finally the FDA responds to the comments and issues a final regulation.

Here is an example of that process, where we've filed a Citizens Petition demanding the suspension of all FDA vaccine drug approvals as violating the 1986 vaccine safety law.


 As my friend and colleague (and "The Dean of the Patriot Lawyers") Larry Becraft JD always reminds me, nearly all Fed Regulations are illegally adopted. The FDA is no exception. This report from the Pacific Legal Foundation confirms it. And here is the Report showing FDA fails to abide by the law: https://pd.pacificlegal.org/HHSReport Report highlights:
The US Constitution makes lawmakers democratically accountable, yet Americans are subject to thousands of rules that are issued by bureaucrats without democratic accountability. But Who Rules the Rulemakers reviewed 2,952 final rules issued by the Department of Health and Human Services over a 17-year period. The report found that nearly 75% of these rules are unconstitutional because they were issued by low-level officials and employees with no authority to issue rules. The 2,094 unconstitutional rules we found have real consequences for individuals and small businesses. Among the thousands of rules issued without democratic controls by the Food and Drug Administration were 25 rules that each had an impact of $100 million or more. Each of the branches should act to rein in this undemocratic behavior—including striking down illegally issued rules and requiring senior appointees to take responsibility for rules issued by their agencies.
Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch was a strong voice in opposition to unlawful bureaucratic rule-making before he was appointed to the Supreme Court. I wrote a bit about him in January 2017 in comments about a bill that passed the GOP House and was directed at the administrative state. [*]   In August 2017 here is what then Judge Gorsuch said about the Chevron [**] case that allowed some "delegation" of rule-making power:
"There’s an elephant in the room with us today. We have studiously attempted to work our way around it and even left it unremarked. But the fact is Chevron and Brand X permit executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers’ design. Maybe the time has come to face the behemoth."

[*] http://vitaminlawyerarchives.blogspot.com/2017/01/house-passes-h5-to-redress-judicial.html
[**] Here is how Wikipedia describes the Chevron case - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc. "Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a statute which it administers. Chevron is the Court's clearest articulation of the doctrine of "administrative deference," to the point that the Court itself has used the phrase "Chevron deference" in more recent cases."

Monday, April 29, 2019

Fox News Fake News Vaxx Propaganda Attacks NY Jewish Community

#VaxxFreeWorld
The "World's #1 Anti-Vaxxer" Counsel Kent Heckenlively spoke on Alex Jone's InfoWars last night about the fake "measles outbreak" and President Trump's apparent endorsement of the MMR vaccine.  Support Counsel Kent's efforts to help Trump understand the truth. We need 100,000 signatures on the pending White House Petition by May 19th (2,300 signatures already).

Share this link immediately: http://tinyurl.com/vaxxfreeworld

Meanwhile, the vaxx-pusher propaganda reaches new depths as Fox News gives us a new twist on the infamous "Blood Libel" that targeted Jews for spreading harm in society. This time it's "spreading disease" (sic) which was also part of Nazi propaganda.

This morning's Fox News headline crawl reads:  “Anti-Vaccine Booklet Blamed for Measles Outbreak” — Fake News Fox telling us that “anti-vaccine propaganda” among the New York Orthodox Community is to blame for the “measles outbreak” in New York.

The claim is that this booklet, entitled “Vaccines Are Dangerous” is somehow “propaganda.” Fox decried the booklet's historically accurate linking of forced vaccination to horrific Nazi "medical" experiments that (Fox News failed to note) led the world to enshrine the right of Informed Consent in International Law.

Those who have taken the time to research the issue know that, in fact, the science is settled: vaccines are, according to our courts, “unavoidably unsafe.” (See Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in Bruesewitz vs Wyeth). Shame on Fox!

Those who pretend otherwise are the real propagandists who seek to destroy Free Speech.

Friday, April 5, 2019

What Measles Outbreak?

The One Caused by Vaccination Failure!#VaxxFreeWorld Tell the FDA Here:
https://TinyURL.com/vaxxfreeworld



We've all seen the "news" -- the great Measles Outbreak of 2019 means we must abandon our universal right to Informed Consent and all be forced to "take the shot" or else... Something Terrible Might Happen

Except, the scientific record does not accord with the vaxx-pusher propaganda!  Where is the outbreak?  It is among the vaccinated![1] The 2019 "outbreak" if it exists just proves the failure of vaccination as a public health strategy -- especially the MMR (Measles, Mumps and Rubella) vaccine[2]. While a truly troubling outbreak, the Los Angeles Typhus Outbreak of 2018 highlights a serious risk to public health, there is no hue and cry over the shocking increase in Typhus cases from "zero"  few years ago to 2 in 2017 and over 120 in 2018.[3]  Why no media frenzy over this deadly disease? Maybe because there is no commercially available Typhus vaccine?

Since we now know that all FDA vaccine drug approvals since 1986 are unlawful, as violating the Childhood Vaccine Injury Act since the Health and Human Services Department (the Department that oversees the FDA) has failed to provide even one of the statutory vaccine safety reports, as shown by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Esq. Freedom of Information Act case last year. [4]

What do do? Support the Citizens Petition filed last month demanding the suspension of all vaccine drug approvals.  Do that here:  http://tinyurl.com/VaxxFreeWorld. [5]

Assert your universal right to Informed Consent.  If you do not assert your right, it will be "deemed waived."  Do that here: http://tinyurl.com/AVDcard. We stand with the US Supreme Court in Missouri vs McNeely569 US 141 (2013). Defendant McNeely loudly asserted his Informed Consent right to refuse a blood test.  Here is what the high court said in finding for the Defendant:


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…” (page 15; emphasis added).

The recent decision by Rockland County, NY to ban all unvaccinated children from school and all public places is a very troubling and wrong decision. [6] That this draconian decision will impact the 27% of the children who are not vaccinated "against" measles is shocking. That most of these children are Orthodox Jews adds the horror of Vaxx Apartheid to the public health threat posed by the recently vaccinated.

Time is running out.  
The vaxx-pushers are coming after us all. Act now!   
http://tinyurl.com/VaxxFreeWorld



 Share this message with all your circles of influence: http://drrimatruthreports.com/what-measles-outbreak/

[1] http://healthimpactnews.com/2019/as-vaccinated-adults-continue-to-spread-measles-many-question-real-reasons-behind-n-y-ban-on-unvaccinated-children-in-jewish-communities/ [2] http://vaccineimpact.com/2019/more-evidence-of-mmr-vaccine-failure-university-mumps-outbreak-among-vaccinated-students/ [3] https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Typhus-Epidemic-Worsens-in-Los-Angeles-505166301.html [4] http://www.opensourcetruth.com/vax-lie-smoking-gun/ [5] http://drrimatruthreports.com/a-special-message-from-the-worlds-1-anti-vaxxer/ [6] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/nyregion/measles-jewish-community.html