LAWYERS WHO FILED A REQUEST TO STOP THE ENFORCEMENT OF SB 277 WERE SHOT DOWN BY THREE SUPREME COURT RULINGS!
By AL Whitney © copyround 2016
Permission is granted for redistribution if linked to original and ParentsAgainstMandatoryVaccines.net is acknowledged.
Senate Bill 277 was passed and signed into ‘law’ by Governor Brown last year. This so-called law prevents parents from opting out of California’s vaccination requirements for children entering public or private schools. Essentially no child can be enrolled without proof that they have been subjected to a litany of unwarranted pharmaceutical products called vaccines.
Before the passage of SB 277 parents could submit a document or form requesting permission to opt out (get an exemption) with the assurance that this permission would be granted. This process has been relied on by California vaccine-savy parents for many years, allowing them to ignore the fact that the ‘state’ had no authority to force them to have their progeny injected with any substance whatsoever. The privilege (the Judge’s words not mine) of opting out created what is referred to as the vaccine “choice” movement, i.e. the parent could chose to vaccinate or not!
Well, on August 26, 2016 Judge Dana Sabraw of the UNITED STATES SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA filed a motion in the court denying the request of a group of attorneys (on behalf of multiple people and institutions) to stop the implementation of SB 277. The attorneys had sited several reasons to halt the application of SB 277 including ‘Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion’.
Some of us were expecting this response for the very same reasons the Judge cited, the main one being case law that was established by the 1944 Supreme Court decision Prince vs. Massachusetts. Judge Sabraw not only cited the Prince case, he sited two others as well: Jacobson vs the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1905) and Zucht vs. King (1922). None of these three cases has been overturned mainly because the Supremes have refused to hear suits challenging them, which is their prerogative in our current injustice system. In fact, the Rutherford Institute filed a petition to challenge mandatory vaccines in 2011 and the Supremes rejected it.
Here is Judge Sabraw’s official conclusion:
State Legislatures have a long history of requiring children to be vaccinated as a condition to school enrollment, and for as many years, both state and federal courts have upheld those requirements against constitutional challenge. History , in itself, does not compel the result in this case, but the case law makes clear that States may impose mandatory vaccination requirements without providing for religious or conscientious objections.
Judge Sabraw gave history and case law as his reasons for denying the injunction request. Citing history brings in “custom and usage” which is used in the Uniform Commercial Code to support the expansion of their law merchant. See: UCC § 1-103
CONCLUSION – continued
Although the removal of the PBE [personal belief exemption] here affects a great many people, this Court, is not prepared to hold that a minority, residing or remaining in any city or town where [disease] is prevalent, may thus defy the will of its constituted authorities, acting in good faith for all, under the legislative sanction of the State. If such be the privilege of a minority then a like privilege would belong to each individual of the community, and the spectacle would be presented of the welfare and safety of an entire population being subordinated to the notions of a single individual who chooses to remain a part of that population.
Please note that Judge Sabraw refers to opt-out exemptions as privileges, not rights. He also refers to the mythical concept of herd immunity which is a falsehood, that although vigorously promoted, has not survived scientific scrutiny.
CONCLUSION – continued
Jacobson , 197 U.S. at 37-38. Over 100 years ago, the Supreme Court was, unwilling to hold it to be an element in the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States that one person, or a minority of persons, residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local, should have the power thus to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State.
In his denial of the request for an injunction the Judge cited the same ole Supreme Court decisions that have been dragged out over and over, i.e. Jacobson, Zucht, and Prince. As retired Judge John Molloy exposed in his book Fraternity, case law is not the same as legislated law. Case law is law created by the judiciary.
The arguments contained in this injunction denial shoot down the whole “choice” movement when it comes to vaccines. This Judge is clearly stating that the government’s corrupted version of the “greater good” negates vaccination choice. The judge even explained on page 5 why the Supreme Court cases ostensibly accomplished that goal over 70 years ago. The employees of the CDC know about these cases and have sited them on their web site. Jacobson vs Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1905) established “police power” for the state and Prince vs Massachusetts (1944) brought in the “Parens Patriae” doctrine. See: Parens Patriae and mandatory vaccinations.
Can anyone explain why so-called “vaccine rights” attorneys never mention Prince vs. Massachusetts? This judge sited it several times.
Why aren’t attorneys challenging the fact that the “the constitued authorities” [the legislature] are NOT acting “in good faith” when they accept money from drug companies for their election campaigns prior to voting for vaccine mandates?
Why aren’t more of us challenging the legitimacy of “case law”?
,Quote from Judge John Molloy:
The once honorable profession of law now fully functions as a bottom-line business, driven by greed and the pursuit of power and wealth, even shaping the laws [case law] of the United States outside the elected Congress and state legislatures.
It should be evident to all now that the whole ‘vaccine choice’ movement is barking up the wrong tree.
None of the vaccine pushers are “acting in good faith”. ALL of them are getting monetary rewards (carrots) or avoiding penalties (sticks) for pushing forward the vaccination agenda, which this judge confirmed on page 16: “The objective of total immunization . . .”
If we don’t direct our efforts toward the arguments used by the vaccine pushers – some of which Judge Sabraw nicely provided for us – we will surely be facing a grim future of vaccine caused illnesses.
Also, recently the World Health Organization, in a speakers guide, referred to vaccine-savvy people as “vaccine deniers”. We need to do our best to counter the rhetoric of both the Center for Disease Control and the World Health Organization. After all, we are the vaccine-savy and those who don’t challenge the safety and efficacy of vaccines are the “vaccine deniers”.