Many parents are already aware of the “Medical Kidnapping” of children that has been going on for quite awhile in the United States. Others – the compliant ones – are oblivious to this state executed crime.
Since the passage of the Social Security Act in 1935 and the implementation of state issued Birth Certificates, the state has assumed the unconstitutional supreme authority over all children who have a Birth Certificate. The doctrine behind this usurpation of authority is known as Parens Patriae.
In the United States, the parens patriae doctrine has had its greatest application in the treatment of children, mentally ill persons, and other individuals who are legally incompetent to manage their affairs. The state is the supreme guardian of all children within its jurisdiction, and state courts have the inherent power to intervene to protect the best interests of children whose welfare is jeopardized by controversies between parents. This inherent power is generally supplemented by legislative acts that define the scope of child protection in a state.
Under most religious law, the children belong to the parents. It is a moral obligation on the part of the parents to care for and educate their children in their existing social values and morals. However, the Center for Disease Control INC (CDC) has informed its employees that this is not really the case. The following comes from their web site: Continue reading →
Following is an analysis of some of the opinions expressed by BAR attorney Alan Phillips on December 22, 2015 in an invitation-only internet vaccination discussion forum with a large membership (over 100 members). Mr. Phillips expressed his opinion as to what topics the members of this discussion forum should be allowed to post and what they should not be allowed to post. Unfortunately the moderator of this discussion forum decided to accept Phillips’ definitions. I was removed for posting a piece exposing that physicians are being called upon to report on patient’s public health status (which would include vaccination history) called Deputizing Doctors
My primary concern is not my removal from the discussion forum, but the extremely important information that is being censored by the influence of gatekeeper BAR attorney Phillips. By controlling the discussion, Phillips can ensure the elephants in the room are never acknowledged or explored. The physicians, non-profit directors, researchers and journalists in the forum are then kept in the dark as to the vaccination agenda and how it is being executed across the country. Without this knowledge, they will be powerless to help stop it.
Please note: Alan Phillips has claimed to be the leading legal expert in the country regarding vaccines and ‘the law’. Many do not concur with his self assessment. Below are a few of gate keeper Phillips comments followed by my analysis – which includes bona fide sources.
Alliance for Vaccine Awareness [invitation only internet discussion forum]
Disinformation: Critical Scrutiny is Necessary
Posted by Alan Phillips Tuesday at 1:52pm [December 22, 2015]
There are only 2 legitimate vaccine discussion areas: 1) medical (do they work, are they effective, are they necessary, are there viable alternatives, etc.), and 2) legal (when are they mandatory, do you have the right to refuse, how do we change laws to get those rights, etc.). Issues of corruption, politics, etc. fall under these two headings–the use of false science to control policy and law, our rights.
When we allow our focus to be pulled away from these topics, big pharma pushes forward with its legislative agenda unopposed. WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD IS IN THE STATE LEGISLATURES, as the fed govt lacks authority to mandate vaccines directly. There are definitely fed law issues, but the primary focus must be on the state law level.
But I respectfully request that the owner or manager of this . . . project delete any discussions not pertinent to vaccine medicine and law, . . .
Let’s look at the important issues outside of gatekeeper Phillips’ definitions: vaccine science and state statutory law.
[Before reading the following exposé, please read this well written explanation regarding the origin and nature of BAR Esquire attorneys. Hint, they are not what most people think they are. The Legal Craft]
On November 10, 2015 BAR Esquire Mike Donnelly of the HOME SCHOOL LEGAL DEFENSE ASSOCIATION (HSLDA) posted an article (Is Government Data Being Used to Deliver drug Company Profits) on their web site regarding letters sent to parents by the Indiana and Michigan health departments. The Michigan form letter was about their statewide vaccination database called the Michigan Care Improvement Registry (MCIR). It was addressed to “Parent or Guardian” (a UCC legal term meaning legal fiction “person”). It was originally personalized with a MCIR ID#, the date of birth, and age of the child. The letter also stated that their child “may be due” for specific vaccines based on MCIR records. The Michigan dept of Health & Human Services’ letter provided a list of “What you have to do”, which included: 1) make a doctor’s appointment, 2) give the doctor the MCIR notice, and 3) request the doctor’s office update the MCIR vaccination records. The letter did not contain the word require, nor did it site any state code, rule or regulation. You don’t have to be BAR Esquire to make these observations.
For many years the HSLDA has sold its unsuspecting membership the notion that this massive Washington, DC based non-profit corporation advocates for moms and dads who wisely choose to home school their sons and daughters. Membership in this non-profit corporation is $120 a year. They claim to have a membership of 84,000, therefore their admitted annual income exceeds $10, 080,00 a year and supports 9 BAR Esquires included in a staff of 100.
To preserve and advance the fundamental, God-given, constitutional right of parents and others legally responsible for their children to direct their education. We advocate for these freedoms in the courtrooms, before government officials, and in the public arena.
While their mission statement sounds good like all mission statements, it is based on keeping the “constitutional rights” myth alive for the purpose of fleecing the ill informed.
Earlier this year (July 7) Constitutional and Administrative attorney Jonathon Emord told the truth regarding agency rules and regulations and the US Constitution on a Coast to Coast radio broadcast. Here is a short clip from that interview:
Mr. Emord accurately stated that since the 1930’s administrative agencies have been increasingly dismantling our so-called “Constitutional” rights. Unfortunately he did not mention the reasons: 1) the well documented permanent state of national emergency (responsible for the creation of the massive administrative arm of our so-called government) which originated in 1933 and 2) the implementation of the Uniform Commercial Code (statutory law) which occurred in the 50’s and 60’s.
While BAR Esquire Donnelly’s article reflected his objection to government data collection efforts being used to promote pharmaceutical products, he totally misinformed HSLDA members. He stated that the letter “ordered parents to make an appointment to have their children immunized”, which it did not. Donnelly also did not let them know that the letter created no obligation for them to take any action whatsoever. Again it does not contain the word require and absolutely no code, rule or regulation is even sited.
As an advocate for lawful government, here is what I would do with this letter:
. . . and here’s what I would do with my Home School Legal Defense Association membership: Lesson: Never presume that Esquires are experts in the law!
Some of the articles or pieces posted on this site contain copyrighted material. Credit is given to the author and links are provided to the original source. AntiCorruption Society makes this information available to advance public education. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use the copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.