COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates Are Illegal, But It's Not Being Argued Properly In The Courts

a reply to: SlapMonkey
Looks like you lopped off part of that sentence "...of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product...".

The whole message seems to be "you must be informed that you can say no but you also must be informed about the consequences of saying no".
That seems to be saying that you are bound to whatever those consequences might be.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Trueman

That takes us into anti-discrimination issues, which the federal and state governments almost all have that would be foundations for taking it to court.

How would you know it ?

Let's say you have a restaurant and you want to hire a cook. You interview 2 or 3 guys. One of them is vaccinated. You call him couple of days later and hire him.

Wait until vaccine passports/IDs become part of background checks. The info will be there. Employers will see it, nobody will tell you the vaccine is why you got the job.

Other example, you need a babysitter for your kids. Yep, you'll pick the one with the shots.

Other example, you have a grocery store. You put outside a big sign (sorta) : " All Our Employees Are Vaccinated". You'll get more costumers.

If I had to go to court to not be vaxed then I would use the religious exemption. And my argument would be this.

Your vaccine has horrible timing. According to the book of Hosea and the day of Jezreel prophecy it was predicted Israel was to be cursed for 2000 years followed by a 1000 year "day of Jezreel". Now if you look at the history of the last 2000 years you see the Jews killed both John the Baptist and Jesus Christ in the 20s to 30s AD. Then lost a rebellion against the Romans and got their capital Jerusalem and their temple destroyed in 70 AD. And they have been scattered to the world for roughly the past 1900 years until recently.

So put simply based on that it appears the Apocalypse of Revelation and Matthew 24 has been running since 1948. It's 73 years old now.

So the first problem here is that the Apocalypse is running.

The 2nd problem is that the Federal govt. through various means is forcing people to get vaxxed. And here's what that is violating. Verse 17. The mark can come later.

Revelation 13
16And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

The government and it's agents violate verse 17 everytime someone is fired or denied entrance to school, shopping, or whatever. A vax passport would qualify under the "name of the beast" or "the number of his name" clauses.

And that is the scariest part of vaccines. If not the mark of the beast itself it's the predecessor to it. And you're risking eternal damnation for taking it.

a reply to: daskakik

So you can say no to that everything that happened to you?
If you don't see the Hippocratic stance you are taking then good luck

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
So you can say no to that everything that happened to you?

What?

If you don't see the Hippocratic stance you are taking then good luck

I'm not taking any stance. I'm pointing out a part of the sentence in the law, left out of the highlights in the OP, which plainly states that someone who says no might face consequences.

a reply to: LanceCorvette

No one is being forced to take the vaccine. The quoted statute says a person has to be informed of the consequences of a refusal to take it.

Literally, you can be fired for not taking it. Freedom of choice does not mean freedom from consequences.

I have no idea why you addressed this to me. It has nothing to do with my question for the OP.

However, those are pretty weaselly words for such an authoritarian position. Freedom of choice necessarily comes with natural consequences; it does not include arbitrary consequences created by law.

Let’s say an employer mandates a vax, they will say it is their right to do so and the person can find a job somewhere else if they find it objectionable . The person has a RIGHT to refuse the Vax, the employer isn’t forcing them to get one. They’re just saying you will have to work somewhere else. So I don’t think the OP’s post would stand.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I agree that employers should not be allowed to mandate a vaccine that is NOT FDA approved, however, some judges are allowing it. In return, employers have to accept that they will be legally and financially responsible for any fallout or injuries caused by doing so, according to law.

Personally, I believe that employees should have the right to sue for discrimination until there is FDA approval, but in usual fashion, so far it looks like the only people who have any standing are those who are already injured.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Thanks for bringing this thread and analysis.

Sadly, in the end, the US Judiciary is every bit as corrupt as the other 2 branches of government. The judiciary seems to have few to none conscientious members.

I had looked at 21USC360, but not as closely as you. You are correct in your analysis. Too bad there are so few well informed attorneys and judges.

Might you know the section of Title 21 that David Martin and others have alluded to, claiming that IF there is a successful therapy for any given disease, developing a vaccine for that disease is not authorized?

originally posted by: Salander

Sadly, in the end, the US Judiciary is every bit as corrupt as the other 2 branches of government. The judiciary seems to have few to none conscientious members.

The fix is in for sure in the judiciary. Rule and law concerning EUA medications is pretty clear conditioning anything based on taking it or not taking is a no-go, based on the law...yet rulings continue to be in opposition to the law. The star bellied Sneetches (C19 injected) are the preferred kind of Sneetch. If you choose not to go through the star-on machine you are screwed. Once fully approved, all kinds of precedent. You'll need your star. But while EUA, this injection should not be allowed to be any kind of mandated or a condition of any thing.

Here is another piece of my C19 injection hesitancy along the lines of strong arming the vaccine while EUA...

Vets and non-vets alike are pretty familiar with some dictatorial traits of the Dept of Defense, particularly when it comes to shots. Get your shot or you are rung up for failure to obey. Quick search of "DoD Anthrax court marital" should yield some nice background. That case was particular in that anthrax vaccine was looooong approved by FDA...just not for prevention of inhalation (route of weaponized anthrax). Off label use, like EUA, requires consent. A few people non-consented. Those people got varying degrees of punishment, including conviction at court martial. So the DoD has a pretty solid history of mandating vaccines when mandating was on shaky legal ground.

So why is the DoD maintaining it's voluntary status on C19 while it's EUA???? It's certainly not that they find it important to give people a choice. lol. No way. For some reason, I believe they can't. I suspect that reason is strong enough legal prohibition to do so, one they are for whatever reason they are not willing to push while the vaccine is in EUA. I do fear the permissiveness of allowing it to be mandated elsewhere will embolden the DoD to make it mandatory before it gets full approval (which the moment it is, roll up your sleeve). But for now, something is keeping the DoD stance in line with what the law says about consent as it pertains to EUA medications and medical ethics. It's very strange. I'm proud the DoD is doing the right thing.

a reply to: davegazi2

I hope you're correct on DoD actions. I hope there are enough good men in the Pentagon to realize these are dangerous drugs that harm those who take it, to some degree or another.

My fine young nephew is about 2 years shy of retirement from US Army, and is trying hard to avoid having to take it.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Freedom of choice necessarily comes with natural consequences; it does not include arbitrary consequences created by law.

Right, because fines, community service and prison time are all naturally occurring.

a reply to: daskakik

Right, because fines, community service and prison time are all naturally occurring.

No, fines, community service and prison time are all arbitrary manmade consequences with the intent to hurt and punish people.

Natural consequences are those that come about naturally from nature... like viruses and the potential symptoms, complications and adverse outcomes of the virus.

a reply to: Boadicea
And when one cites law, like the OP did, consequences are not limited to only natural ones.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Boadicea
And when one cites law, like the OP did, consequences are not limited to only natural ones.

I have read legal arguments and opinions to the contrary.

The law is what we make of it. The law is intended and to be based upon and in accordance with the founding principles and organic law of free will and liberty. Punishing people for making their own choices is not free will and liberty.

If the law does any less than defend and protect our free will and liberty, than the law needs to be changed, or eliminated altogether. Man made the law, man can change or eliminate the law.

a reply to: Boadicea
And those laws include unnatural punishments/consequences.

They always have, opinions to the contrary not withstanding.

Still the fact is that the law cited also mentions these unnatural consequences, so your argument is moot.

a reply to: daskakik

Who gets to define which punishment is natural or unnatural?

a reply to: Salander
Whoever wants to argue about it.

It has no bearing on the laws in effect and their enforcement.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Do you assume the courts care about the actual law?

Well, being that I've been a part of the legal field directly or indirectly for 14 years of my adult life, I know that the courts care about the law. This isn't about caring about the law, it's about arguing in front of the courts correctly if you want a specific outcome to happen.

The attorneys are not doing that, and so the court can only rule on what's being argued, and they're doing so correctly at this point.

originally posted by: Boadicea
So here's my question for you: In your opinion, should these attorneys know better. Should these attorneys be aware of this very significant difference in the law, and be arguing their cases accordingly?

This seems pretty basic to me. Even if the attorney's still wanted to argue 14th issues, they could have and should have supplemented that argument with specific law allowing for the vaccine.

Yes, every attorney has an obligation to discuss whether or not the case has merit, and they should have known that an argument based solely on an already-failed 14th-Amendment fight would not be the correct route to go. Either these attorneys are rather incompetent, are complicit in wanting rulings that reflect well on forced vaccinations, or just wanted paid and didn't care.