Legal Chicanery:
We have a legal update of some import which once again illustrates how ‘experts’ were wrong (as they almost always are) and may be closer to a comeuppance that some feel they deserve.
Before delving into this case, I’d like to point to a remarkable couple of op-eds in the New York Times, of all places. I offer these as additional proof (along with the trial case yet to come below) that the needle is moving towards the truth coming out. That, despite the best efforts of the powers that be to suppress it.
The first op-ed is entitled “Why Covid Probably Started in a Lab.” Written by Alina Chan (a molecular biologist who works at Harvard and MIT), the author notes that “a growing volume of evidence - gleaned from public records released under the Freedom of Information Act, digital sleuthing through online databases, scientific papers analyzing the virus and its spread, and leaks from within the US government - suggests that the pandemic most likely occurred because a virus escaped from a research lab in Wuhan, China. If so, it would be the most costly accident in the history of science.”
Here we are in the middle of 2024, four and a half years in from the beginning of the pandemic, and the New York Times is finally waking up to this?! I for one don’t believe it. It has to be another ‘limited hangout.’ That is, it must be a concession that the war is lost on hiding that truth and so now the Times has to make it look like they have been diligently in pursuit of the truth and finally have some evidence. You and I have known for just about forever that this was a manufactured virus. In fact, it can be properly termed a biowarfare agent.
Pair that op-ed with the next one on the same page: “An Object Lesson on How to Destroy Public Trust,” elsewhere titled “Fauci, Congress and the fragility of Trust.” Authored by Zeynep Tufekci, it begins: “Big chunks of the history of the Covid pandemic were rewritten over the last month or so in a way that will have terrible consequences for many years to come.” The writer notes that Dr. Fauci “acknowledged” in his recent Congressional testimony that many of his proclamations were not backed up by science. It seems to admit that self-declared ‘Mr. Science’ is not all that. Further: “... inconvenient information was kept from the public - suppressed, denied or disparaged as crackpot nonsense.” Later the writer importantly notes: “I wish I could say these were all just examples of the science evolving in real time, but they actually demonstrate obstinacy, arrogance and cowardice.” NYTimes Opinion on Fauci's testimony
Further along she writes: “When I broke my strict isolation to volunteer at a vaccine clinic … and later, when I gleefully rolled up my own sleeve … I felt I had reason to trust that the manufacturer hadn’t cheated in the trials, that the scientists overseeing the process weren’t corrupt and that if something untoward had happened, it wouldn’t have been covered up.” Clearly she has a ways to go in learning what some of us who yes, did our own research, have known for quite some time. They were NOT honest about the clinical trials and they did cover things up.
Look, I’d love to report to you that the NY Times is an honest paper just trying its best to keep up with the ever evolving landscape of science. But to me this looks more like another limited hangout. The game is over in terms of masks, six feet of social distancing and even the origins of the virus. However, our writer did NOT go so far as criticizing the mRNA shots. Those ‘vaccines’ are still deemed real life-savers. We are still left waiting to read that final un-limited hangout; don’t hold your breath. Until I see ‘America’s Paper of Record’ admit that the whole ball of wax was made-up nonsense (that is the shutting down of the economy for years, the ‘countermeasures’ employed, the ‘treatments’ offered and the so-called ‘vaccines,’) I cannot give them the credit that they are undoubtedly seeking.
Legal v Just:
Next I want to get into the legal case at hand, but first, let me state that we have a serious problem in this country with figuring out what is legal and what is not. Note that I use the word “legal” here and not ‘figuring out what is “just” and what is not.’ The two (legal and just), although intended to approximate each other, increasingly have not-a-thing to do with one another. In fact I propose a name change from the DOJ - “Department of Justice” - to DOL - “Department of Legalisms.”
We live in an age where we see the perversion of the legal system, using it as a weapon to achieve political aims. Of course I include in this the weaponization of the system to criminalize a political opponent. When you see many notables taking classified documents home (think Trump of course but also Pence and both Clintons and Obama and Joe Biden), yet only one is charged with a crime, you know you are headed down a dark path. When you see statutes of limitation extended, misdemeanors (at most) turned into felonies, jurors misdirected, witnesses prohibited from testifying, it is only confirmed. When you see DAs exposed as having far worse criminal activities than the ones they are prosecuting and when you see 1 ⁄ 2 billion dollar fines for a victimless difference of opinion in valuing a piece of property, it takes willful blindness to not see what is going on.
But the system was broken already long ago. I won’t go too deeply down that rabbit hole other than to do a quick high-level analysis. How did we stray so far from having a legal system that approximates justice? I contend it all began when we hyphenated justice. Our “experts” (there they go again) decided to fix our system and replace justice with causes. In order to do that, they had to pretend that they were interested in justice and so they came up with names that have “justice" in them in order to sound like they are in fact justice … when they are not. Hence we have so-called social-justice. And there is racial-justice, and environmental-justice, distributive-justice, restorative-justice, economic-justice and global-justice. Each has the word justice in it in order to disguise that each is the exact opposite of justice.
There is a reason that the Bible says “justice, justice shall ye seek” (Deuteronomy 16:20). No insertions, just justice. Justice used to be, and ought to still be, blind. Every person should have the same treatment under the law. How far we have strayed. Hyphenated justice is essentially a pretty sounding way to rationalize discrimination against an unfavored group … usually to fix some remote wrong perceived to be attributable to an entire group most of whose members never did anything either illegal or unjust. Anyhow, that’s something to ponder as our esteemed schools of law train another generation how to discriminate legally and as we move on to the case at hand.
Health Freedom Defense v LAUSD:
I become practically giddy when at times legality and actual justice have a brief rendezvous. We may be having just such a moment in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Much ink is being spilled over this case … some overly optimistic and some overly pessimistic, in my view. But here’s the story.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals covers territory including California and until Trump’s presidency was reliably the most reversed court in the land … so outlandishly ‘progressive’ they were. However, during Trump’s term in office a number of positions on the court opened up and they were filled by more Constitutionally minded judges. The court has become a much saner vehicle of the law (and even justice at times) since then.
That brings us to the much discussed ruling that just came down in a case involving Health Freedom Defense Fund v Los Angeles United School District (LAUSD). I will try to distill the important milestones of this case for you.
After LAUSD imposed a strict “vaccine mandate” they were sued. When brought to court, the defendants (LAUSD) claimed that the case was moot and should be dropped because they had just implemented an ‘exceptions policy’ which allowed for testing in lieu of ‘vaccination.’ The courts agreed and the case was dismissed. However it was brought once again when LAUSD sneakily reinstated the mandate after the legal case against them was dropped. Knowing that this would be costly and burdensome for the plaintiffs to reinstate, LAUSD thought they had outsmarted the plaintiffs. Not so fast. The case was brought again by the particularly tenacious plaintiffs. So LAUSD dropped the mandate once again … and again requested that the case be dropped a second time since it was again “moot.” Here is where a proper and gratifying court decision was made. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stated the following:
LAUSD’s pattern of withdrawing and then reinstating its vaccination policies is enough to keep this case alive. Twice LAUSD has withdrawn its policy only after facing some litigation risk.
Litigants who have already demonstrated their willingness to tactically manipulate the federal courts in this way should not be given any benefit of the doubt. LAUSD’s about-face occurred only after vigorous questioning at argument in this court, which suggests that it was motivated, at least in part, by litigation tactics.
This case is not moot.
But wait there’s more! Some may recall that I brought up long ago the Jacobson v Massachusetts case, which occurred way back in 1905. That case is rather complex but at its heart, Henning Jacobson refused the smallpox vaccine saying that he had a prior bad vaccine experience in his previous home of Sweden and could not be mandated to take this vaccine. The courts disagreed and fined him $5 (which was worth quite a bit more than today [currently worth about $178] yet was still a relative slap on the wrist). The courts said that the state could mandate this (Supreme Court by 7 to 2 vote) so long as the measures do not “go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public.”
Flash forward to our California case: the appellate justices were decidedly circumspect regarding the LAUSD’s claims that the shots were reasonably required for the safety of the public. The defendants claimed that the “COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.” But that quote was taken straight from the CDC and the court rightfully asked ‘what does that CDC claim even mean?’ And does that translate to the shot being required for public safety?
Listen to the court:
LAUSD only provides a CDC publication that says “COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.” But “safe and effective” for what? LAUSD implies that it is for preventing transmission of COVID-19 but does not adduce judicial noticeable facts that prove this.
One of the judges wrote the following, which is even stronger:
The district court further erred by failing to realize that these allegations directly implicate a distinct and more recent line of Supreme Court authority, in which the Court has stated that “[t]he principle that a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment may be inferred from prior decisions.
The justice further cited case law where it was taken into account that common law has held that forced medication is in fact a battery and there is a very long legal tradition of protecting a patient’s right to refuse medical treatment. So although some claim there is no Constitutional right to ‘not take a vaccine,’ there is in fact plenty of case law that supports that … especially since it can be confidently stated now that the shot neither protects from getting the disease nor from passing it on. Even if one accepts that the shot ameliorates disease severity (and I for one do not), that does not suggest in any way that it is necessary for “public safety.”
As Jeff Childers, Esq. says: “Since the shots are not vaccines, Jacobson does not apply. Since they don’t protect others, mandated shots are legalized battery.”
And that, my friends, is progress.
In health,
DocofLastResort