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: 

Since the New York State legislature repealed long-standing religious conscientious objection exemptions to vaccine mandates (in one day, without public hearings) earlier this year, the State's various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: ] 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..."
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.." 

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:

Tuesday, July 9, 2019

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:

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 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 - 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:

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:

More about the law of Informed Consent here:

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:

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:

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:

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: 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:

Ralph Fucetola JD

Docket FDA-2019-P-1130-0001