I just received an email from a grandmother who said her 5 year old granddaughter received the hep b vaccine and within 2 hours had severe tics in her head, neck and shoulders. Of course, the doctor denied any connection, so she reached out to me after having done some research. This is what I wrote to her:
Yes, it was the vaccines. Doctors lie all the time about this – it is 100% common and predictable and it is the very reason why parents think vaccines are safe.
So, there are a lot of steps to take right now. I will give them to you:
1) Never vaccinate again – they are very dangerous and not needed
2) You will need to research this to understand why we don’t need them, so first, a few resources:
2a) Read this book: http://amzn.to/2o9giLs
2b) Scan this page: http://www.stopmandatoryvaccination.com/…/vaccine-injury-s…/
2c) Read this entire page:www.stopmandatoryvaccination.com/personal-choice/
2d) Scan this page: www.stopmandatoryvaccination.com/…/we-have-healthy-vaccine…/
3) Watch this very short video about seizures: www.stopmandatoryvaccination.com/…/how-to-treat-stop-vacci…/
3a) Watch this follow up short video about doctors and seizures: www.stopmandatoryvaccination.com/…/dont-trust-doctors-who-…/
4) Fire your pediatrician and never go back. Don’t trust the health of your child in the hands of a liar.
4b) Find a vaccine free doctor for *general health care* – I have resources here: www.stopmandatoryvaccination.com/…/find-a-vaccine-free-doc…/
5) Now your granddaughter needs to be detoxed and treated for vaccine injury (called biomedical treatment). It is very important that this is done by a MAPS doctor and not a regular conventional doctor (who, even if he did believe it was vaccine injury, would only treat symptoms anyway). With this in mind, reach out to www.tacanow.org and talk with a volunteer there. Look at their website and look at their list of MAPS doctors and also diet suggestions, supplement suggestions, etc. Do not be fooled by their name – they are vaccine injury specialists – I send all parents to them.
Look into mild hyperbaric oxygen treatment – this may be recommended – and I also recommend it.
5a) Also look into CEASE THERAPY at www.cease-therapy.com – this is homeopathic detox and it is very effective.
6) Join my group and ask questions – lots of parents have vaccine injured kids and they will have additional suggestions: www.facebook.com/groups/StopMandatoryVaccination/
There is hope for some recovery from this injury, but I can’t stress enough how important it is that biomedical treatment begin ASAP, and that you stop vaccinating – each vaccine builds on the last and will destroy a child.
This is what it is really all about – The bottom line – The error was asking the state for a marriage license. – Please read entire document but begin on page 10 with Family Ties. http://www.teamlaw.net/Warn1.pdf – Now I don’t necessarily agree with every word printed here on this or other articles but for the most part, this does describe how we got to this point. Civics being removed from school curriculum hastening the reduction of knowledge of our rights as a people making it easier to mislead the populous. Just asking the govt. for a marriage license gives them the power to own your children. If you have to ask the govt. for a license to marry, you are considered to be incompetent to make any decisions of your own therefore incompetent to look after your children, in the eyes of the law. Very simple logic on their part that we must, as a people understand where they are coming from so we can do something about it. The lawyers helping fight this must come from this angle which is common law, not what they have been taught. Common law is the supreme law of the land and if presented properly always wins. The marriage contract the state told you was required is a tort of deceit in contract law and voids their misrepresented contract.
In America, people with children are usually married — with a corporate state granted marriage license. Now, everybody knows that a license is “permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal”; and, Where Common Law or better yet, Natural Law marriages are lawfully recognized in every state, it is not otherwise illegal to be married without a license.
Do you remember how you first learned about common law marriages. I was walking to school with a friend. A new family had just moved into the neighborhood and my friend told me they had a common law marriage. I asked, “What’s that?” My friend said it meant they lived together in sin for over seven years, so now their marriage was legal. Most of us learned about marriage from parents, churches, or from school. But, did we learn the whole truth?
The truth is “common law” means the law that is common among the people. We can know what that is by looking at the court rulings among a people and common law is the way the courts rule on the cases before them. Thus another name for common law is standard case law. The seven year rule in common law is actually Biblical. It’s a property law called the “Law of Jubilee”, which says that every seven years (grand jubilee = 50 years) all debts are forgiven, and whatever has been called something for seven years, or more, is what it was called. Though a responsibility in marriage is proven by jubilee, that is not the only limit of natural law marriages. Natural law marriage is defined by “agreement” and “consent”. Jubilee proves the existence of both agreement and consent, because if no one contests the union within seven years jubilee says all contest rights are waived; therefore, any necessary consent was granted by tacit admission.
In a natural law marriage the “agreement” is between the spouses to be — they must agree to be married. “Consent” comes from the father of the bride. He must agree to give his daughter to the bridegroom. Under natural law, if a couple has both agreement and consent they are, by definition, married. That’s all there is to it. The moment agreement and consent are in place the bride and groom are married, and that marriage can lawfully be consummated. Marriages often result in the creation of children. Children are created “in the image of God.” Therefore, such a union is sacred and often tied to a great deal of ceremony, religion, pomp, and circumstance.
Whereas, “license” means, permission to do that which would otherwise be illegal’; and,
Whereas, it is not otherwise illegal to be married under the law; and,
Whereas, the only other reason it would be unlawful for two consenting adults to be married is if they were otherwise incompetent;
Therefore, if a couple goes to “the state” and asks the state for a license, where there is no other reason for them to need a license other than incompetence, in law, those requesting a license must be incompetent because that is the only reason they could possibly need a license.
Now, one must ask, “When a bride and groom are incompetent to be married without a state license and that state grants that license,
Who is responsible for the marriage?” Answer: The grantor, the state.
Who is responsible for anything created in such a licensed marriage? Answer: The grantor, the state.
And, what, typically, is the only thing “created” in such a marriage? Answer: Children.
So I ask you, “Who do the children created in a state licensed marriage belong to?” Answer: They belong to the state.
Believe it, or not. Just check out the evidence:
Evidence #1 — The state social services stand their authority on a doctrine called “Parens Patriae” which is Latin for “parent by the country”. In modern usage parens patriae is understood to mean “the state is the parent”.
Evidence #2 — When U.S. doctors deliver children from the womb they are required to create a document known as a: Record of Live Birth. Is it given to you? No. You’re given a: Birth Certificate. So, what happens to the Record of Live Birth? It’s sent to the, “BUREAU OF VITAL STATISTICS”. And, what is that? It is a sub department of the, “Department of Commerce”. And, what is the, “Department of Commerce”. It is where the U.S. keeps track of its possessions. This evidence indicates that the state is declaring the children as their possession at birth.
Evidence #3 — New statutes, policies and or procedures require hospitals to assign Social Security Numbers to each child before birth, with or without the natural parents signature or permission. (read “Independence Day” in this issue)
Evidence #4 — Why are each of the childbirth performing hospitals in the U.S. registered as “Ports of Entry” into the U.S. when virtually none of them have incoming foreigners?
Evidence #5 — Birth records and Census reports are used as collateral for U.S. loans and as proof of the subservient nature of the people under control of the U.S. government. It’s Scary. It’s proof of the war. It’s fulfillment of Biblical prophesy. And, if we don’t do something to change things we’ll have no promise from the King of Kings (other than judgment).
So what do we do? First we learn what happened. In times past, there were no licenses of marriage except in cases where it was unlawful to otherwise marry. For example, Biblical Law shows God sanctions marriage and forbids intermarriage of races. Therefore, the contract of marriage is traditionally bound by a religious ceremony provided by an official minister; and, the laws of the land forbade miscegenation. So, when a white person wanted to marry a black, if the state was willing on request, it would license miscegenation with a marriage license. Marriage records were kept in family Bibles, then with the advent of licenses, in the County Clerk and Recorder’s offices. Statutes were created to allow anyone desiring a license to obtain one. Churches were used to assist in getting people to use marriage licenses as a manner of recording marriages. Over time, people began to believe licenses were required by law, even though they were only required if you were otherwise incompetent to marry. Now, remember, the promise given to Israel was, if we maintain our stewardship, we’ll inherit the earth. Our stewardship starts with our families.
Isn’t it ironic that the document typically used to begin a marriage is the same document used by the corporate state to remove our children from us?
And, nobody ever even warned us, because government employees were just doing their jobs. Whenever we discover we’ve erred, we can repent. The error was asking the state for a marriage license. Repenting includes fixing the damage. Some people would tell you, ‘To remove the marriage license you have to revoke or rescind your signature from the request for the license.’ However, as a matter of law, revoking or rescinding a signature admits you signed it in the first place. What if you never signed the request for license? Then there would be no license in existence. In contract law there is no signature if full disclosure is not given with presentment of the agreement.
In the case of most marriage licenses, the state does not inform:
- The grantor of the license is a privately owned corporation;
- Licensing with them wasn’t necessary for the marriage;
- Requesting a license constitutes a declaration of incompetence; and,
- Signing such a license admits the state is the responsible parent of your future children, and will be used by them as state collateral.
Therefore, if any of the above points are true in your case, then the contracting license is void and without a lawful signature, from the beginning.
So what about your marriage? Legal & Lawful Marriage? Well think about it. If the two of you went to get a “required” license, you must have had agreement. And, if you had her father’s blessing you had his consent and therefore under Natural Law (Biblical Law) you were married without the license before the license was issued.
The churches rightfully want people to have “legal and lawful” marriages.
A natural law marriage is a “lawful” marriage, meaning it fulfills law. The accent in the lawful marriage is the fact that the parties of the marriage have an agreement, they have the fathers consent and they are bound by their acceptance of, and consummation of, the marriage.
A “legal” marriage indicates a written contract of marriage. The written legal record for a legal marriage evidences the authority the marriage was bound by.
All you have to do to make a lawful natural law marriage “legal and lawful” is, make a legal record of the union made under natural law. In other words, if you legally record your contract of marriage with the County Clerk and Recorder. Such a record is a legal record and the natural law marriage is both a lawful fact and a matter of legal record; thus, “legal and lawful”. Even if your original marriage agreement was verbal, you can later legally reduce it to writing and make it binding from the first moment of your agreement and consent by making your contract “nunc pro tunc”, which means, “now as if then”.
Knowing these things prior to marriage brings on some interesting questions especially if you or the father of the bride have religious beliefs (like I do) that cause you to desire to go through an ecclesiastic leader that may be unaware of the truth and therefore believes you have to have a state issued marriage license. The solution is simple. If it was me, I would obey the law. With agreement and consent, I would:
1/ create a Notice of Marriage stating: I and my spouse to be have an agreement to marry,
2/ show we have consent of the bride’s father, and,
3/ give notice of the intended ceremony which when performed will bind, seal and/or begin the Marriage union.
4/I would have all related parties sign the document.
5/ I would then go to the County Clerk and Recorder’s office and legally record the Notice with the marriage licenses.
6/ I would then get a couple of state certified copies of the Notice.
7/ I would take a state certified copy to the ecclesiastic leader as evidence of the legal right to lawfully marry.
In Law your Notice has a greater authority than the state issued marriage license. The authority you will be using is the authority of natural law in original jurisdiction, as was endowed upon man by birth.
It is the same authority and power that makes you sovereign. It follows law. The Notice is in accord with the laws of the individual states and is binding.
Taking your Family back
This problem started many years ago. It won’t be removed overnight. The state took charge of our stewardships because we signed the agreement and or allowed it. People are a great source of wealth. If the state can convince you that you are under their control, as their asset or subject, then you won’t control them.
We are living with alleged contractual bonds to parens patria, and we have been doing so in condemnation for at least three generations. It’s time we recognized the truth. It’s time to take responsibility for our families, our stewardships and our lives. Removing the marriage license won’t remove the entire problem in and of itself. It will, however, remove the foundation upon which the state builds its entire “parens patria” doctrine. With the state’s foundation removed you’ve taken the
first step to prepare for any battle that may come up where the state attempts to use social workers, or other forces, to interfere with your family rights. You’ll be beginning to act like the sovereign you are. If your marriage is not made under their authority, they have no lawful right to interfere with your family unless you invite them to.
Step two: Stop inviting them to solve your family problems. Be self reliant. It doesn’t mean they won’t ever interfere. It does mean that if they do you’ve disarmed their #1 weapon from their presumption. You’ll need to learn more and to prepare to turn back any attack they bring against you, but foundationally you’ll be ready. Even after we resolve our marriages, the problem is, the system that set up the parens patria system of control still exists and government officials still want us to believe we are their incompetent servants. We need to solve that problem by eliminating the incompetence; thus, Step three: You’re sovereign and therefore you’re responsible, so start acting like it.
Learn the Law — Obey and apply it, and when others trespass against you or yours, mercifully and justly hold them accountable to their trespasses. Accountability is the key. If you’ll do it you’ll be well on the path to true freedom and liberty, and we’ll get our nation back. Team Law can help. That’s why we’re here, to help people wake up and learn the law. Re-tie Family Ties Typically for about the same reasons we had the marriage license problem we have the problem of raising our children in that same system that taught us we needed to have the marriage license.
That system wanted us to be incompetent workers providing all of the “government’s needs”, believing the “government” was supposed to provide our needs. When in reality we are responsible for providing all of our own needs and government’s responsibility is to govern itself and help us maintain our rights and property, without trespass.
The question is, “What are we allowing that system to teach our children?” Perhaps the question should be, “Why are we allowing that system to teach our children?” You don’t have to take your children out of the public school system. Though many have, successfully. However, if your children remain in the public school system, you must take an active part. At the very least pay attention to what your children are learning. I’m not referring to the school’s alleged subject matter, I’m referring to the public school’s end results: drugs, immorality, codependency and crime. You decide what’s best for your children. After all, ultimately, when it comes time for you to stand accountable for your stewardship, you won’t be able to blame the school for the outcome. After all, you are the sovereign.
See full articles here: http://www.teamlaw.net/Warn1.pdf
General Brief on Behalf of Informed Consent
Ralph Fucetola JD
Informed Consent is a Fundamental Human Right Protected Against Diminishment Through Legislative and Administrative Agency Denial of Philosophical or Religious Conscientious Objections to Mandated Vaccination. Informed Consent is Separate from Statutory Exemptions and May Not Be Abolished. The Right to Informed Consent is Meaningless Without the Right to Refuse Any Medical Intervention, Including Vaccination.
Informed Consent FAQs: http://drrimatruthreports.com/advance-vaccine-directive-card-faqs/
Law Note on Informed Consent and the Geneva Conventions:
In order to vindicate International Humanitarian Law regarding Informed Consent to any and all medical interventions, including vaccination, even during any declared local, national or international Health Emergency, the right to refuse any vaccination must be respected, whether that refusal is grounded in philosophical, medical, religious or no reasons at all.
Point One: The Legal Basis for Informed Consent Point
Point Two: Legitimate Government Regulation
Point Three: International Law Protects Informed Consent
Point Four: The Right Must Be Asserted to Be Protected
Point Five: The Right May Not Be Defeated by Unconstitutional Conditions
Point One: The Bill of Rights’ Speech, Privacy and Association Rights are the Basis for Informed Consent.
Implementing the general law as applied to the protection of human life is mandated, in the instance of vaccination, by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the courts “are not without power…” regarding vaccination in the case of Jacobson vs Commonwealth of Massachusetts . In 1914, Judge (later Supreme Court Justice) Benjamin Cardozo validated the concept of voluntary consent when he noted that every human being has a right to decide what shall be done with his or her body, deeming medical intervention without Informed Consent an unlawful trespass:
“Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages.”
Federal Regulation acknowledges Informed Consent for formal Institutional Review Board (IRB – required for FDA approved medical experiments) overseeing experimentation. The recognition of the application of Informed Consent during the less formal “final stage” of experimentation on drugs (including vaccines) released to the public is not adequately implemented by law or regulation, “…Phase 4 trials are conducted after a product is already approved and on the market to find out more about the treatment’s long-term risks…” . With regard to all communications about health care decisions, the members of the public have the right to make informed consent decisions, even if a decision may be considered a “bad” decision by the Government. The Supreme Court indicated, in Thompson v Western States:
“We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information.” . The United States is bound to observe the Nuremberg Code by virtue of the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials and subsequent exacting of justice through penalties, including the death penalty. The Geneva Conventions (the international treaties that govern humanitarian requirements)  require that the United States be bound by these international humanitarian principles. Thus the United States is treaty-bound to implement fully Informed Consent.
Even in an emergency situation the Government Agencies involved must take a pro-active role in the full implementation of Informed Consent without “the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion…”
The public has a right to know, and the governments on the federal and state levels have an obligation to provide, clear information regarding the Informed Consent, to the end that government approvals, requirements, mandates and recommendations are understood to be subject to the Right of Informed Consent. Intervention by the courts must vindicate this Right.
Point Two: Legitimate Government Regulation
Government Agencies have No Legitimate Interest in Promoting FDA-Approved Vaccination Mandates in Violation of Informed Consent.
In the case of State v Biggs (46 SE Reporter 401, 1903) the North Carolina Supreme Court dealt with a person who was advising people as to diet, and administering massage, baths and physical culture. In the Biggs case, the defendant “advertised himself as a ‘nonmedical physician’… [and] held himself out to the public to cure disease by ‘a system of drugless healing’…” p.401.
That Court held that there could be no “state system of healing” p.402 and while “Those who wish to be treated by practitioners of medicine and surgery had the guaranty that such practitioners had been duly examined… those who had faith in treatment by methods not included in the ‘practice of medicine and surgery’ as usually understood, had reserved to them the right to practice their faith and be treated, if they chose, by those who openly and avowedly did not use either surgery or drugs in the treatment of diseases…” p.402.
There is no compelling government interest in controlling people associating together for the improvement of their well-being.
The North Carolina Supreme Court concluded, nearly a century ago in State v Biggs, supra., at p.405:
“Medicine is an experimental, not an exact science. All the law can do is to regulate and safeguard the use of powerful and dangerous remedies, like the knife and drugs, but it cannot forbid dispensing with them. When the Master, who was himself called the Good Physician, was told that other than his followers were casting out devils and curing diseases, he said, ‘Forbid them not.‘” (p.405).
FDA approved drugs, including vaccines, remain in an experimental state, which the FDA calls “Phase 4” of the clinical trials system.
Unless affirmatively and effectively asserted an individual’s Fundamental Right to Informed Consent, the legal ability to resist unwanted medical interventions, such as vaccines and other invasive techniques, may be ignored by the medical system under government directive. Based on the ancient legal principle that “silence is acquiescence” martial law or medical emergency authorities may presume that you consent to even experimental medical interventions, as we saw imposed by WHO dictum during the 2014 Ebola Panic. The same is true of medical practice in “ordinary times”.
After the horrors of the Second World War, including the murder and abuse of millions with the complicity of the “health care” authorities of various warring parties, the international community developed conventions and declarations to the end that “Never Again!” would – or could – the health system or health professionals be used to harm either individuals or whole populations. Those prohibitions and protections remain binding today.
A key element in the international protections secured by the Allied Victory and subsequent codification of health-related international law was recognition that no person could be forced to accept any medical intervention that was contrary to conscience and that all medical interventions were to be carried out only with fully informed [and therefore meaningfully willing] consent.
This has been international law for millennia, starting with the Hippocratic Oath in which doctors swore “I will take care that [my patients] suffer no hurt or damage” and
“Nor shall any man’s entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone…”
Point Three: International Law Protects the Right of Informed Consent
Among the Post World War II protective codifications were the Universal Declaration of Rights, Geneva Declarationand the Nuremberg Code which state, concerning the rights of all human beings and the obligation for ethical action by health personnel:
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person… No one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment … Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights… No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence…”
“I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat…”
“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; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.”
This salutary development of international law has continued with international standards promulgated, such as the UNESCO Universal Bioethics Declaration  about which it has been said:
Even apart from article 7 of the ICCPR, ethical requirements for informed consent before medical or scientific treatment probably constitute international law as involving “general principles of law” under article 38 (1) (c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. The reference to “civilised nations” in this context could well introduce an ethical requirement to such evaluations that many contemporary developed nations may fail.
Defining Informed Consent
“Informed consent is a process for getting permission before conducting a healthcare intervention on a person… In the United Kingdom and countries such as Malaysia and Singapore, informed consent in medical procedures requires proof as to the standard of care to expect as a recognized standard of acceptable professional practice (the Bolam Test), that is, what risks would a medical professional usually disclose in the circumstances (see Loss of right in English law). Arguably, this is “sufficient consent” rather than “informed consent.” … Medicine in the United States, Australia, and Canada take a more patient-centric approach to “‘informed consent.’” Informed consent in these jurisdictions requires doctors to disclose significant risks, as well as risks of particular importance to that patient. This approach combines an objective (the reasonable patient) and subjective (this particular patient) approach.”
.Point Four: The Right Must Be Asserted to Be Preserved
Where there is no recognition of the legal duty to obtain informed consent, the individual or guardian must assert the Right or it may unlawfully assumed or deemed to have been waived. International Humanitarian Law is clear: without clear, affirmative, memorialized informed consent, it must be concluded that Informed Consent has been withheld.
The essential importance of asserting the Right to preserve it is shown by the 2013 US Supreme Court case of Missouri vs McNeely, where the warrantless extraction of blood was ruled illegal as the defendant “refused to consent.” Had McNeely remained silent, the blood test would have been allowed.
.The Court opined,
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).
If the removal of blood “implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests…” it is fair to assume that other invasive medical techniques including the introduction of vaccine toxins into the body that have been held to be “unavoidably unsafe” will also give rise to such concerns.
The Constitution of the United States recognizes certain Rights held by people and delegates certain limited Powers to the government. Without clear respect for those Rights, the judicial system and the administration of government will fail to protect the truly fundamental interests of civil society, including the Right to Informed Consent.
An earlier Supreme Court understood this, when in 1905 in Jacobson v Massachusetts, the Court declared the judicial power to extend to protecting people from forced vaccination.
While giving due deference to the State authorities, the Supreme Court reserved for the Federal Courts the right to intervene in matters where health and life may be at stake:
“…if it be apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty that he is not at the time a fit subject of vaccination or that vaccination, by reason of his then condition, would seriously impair his health or probably cause his death.” [Emphasis added.]
In a regime of verbal obfuscation of fundamental Right, only the clear assertion of the Right will prevent degradation of the Right “by a thousand (bureaucratic) cuts…” If McNeely had not engaged in protected speech stating he did not consent, the taking of his blood would probably have been allowed.
The question then becomes, “How is one to effectively assert the Right to Informed Consent, enshrined in International Humanitarian Law, for oneself and those over whom one has guardianship?” Thus, there is a need for strong Statutory and Regulatory protections for the Right, whether exercised by Advanced Medical Directive or otherwise, in situations that do not involve a formal IRB.
Access to the AVD Card Here: http://drrimatruthreports.com/advancevaccinedirective
Regulatory Petition to FDA Here: http://tinyurl.com/InformedConsentPetition
Model Protective Law Here: http://tinyurl.com/InformedConsentProtection
Point Five: Government Action Imposes an Unconstitutional Condition
on the Constitutionally Protected Right to Informed Consent
The well-established law of Unconstitutional Conditions has particular relevance in the case before any Court wherein a party is faced with the harsh choice of vaccinating the child or having the child banned from the public benefit of public education, required by law for all children. Any law, regulation or policy imposing school vaccine mandates where the parent is faced with denying his or her own expressed beliefs or preferences (beliefs thereby protected under the First Amendment) or denying the child access to public education, is an action “under color of law” that forces coerced consent..
This is precisely the type of duress condemned by the Nuremberg Code.
It is also clearly conditioning the acceptance of a public benefit on the surrender of a right.
The law of Unconstitutional Conditions is well-represented in the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court and the Courts it oversees.
We do not pretend to more expertise on the issue than the Court’s own pronouncements.
The Supreme Court first mentions the phrase in Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co., 94 U.S. 535, 543 (1876) (Badley, J., dissenting) “Though the State may have the [police] power… it has no power to impose unconstitutional conditions…”
In Frost v Railroad Commission, 271 U.S. 583,594 (1925) the Court held it “would be a palpable incongruity to strike down an act of state legislation which, by words of express divestment seeks to strip the citizen of rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution, but to uphold an act by which the same result is accomplished under the guise of a surrender of a right in exchange for a valuable privilege which the state threatens otherwise to withhold… it may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of constitutional rights.”
More recently the Court applied the principle to First Amendment speech rights arising from expressive association issues directly in point here where First Amendment protected religious expressive association is involved. In Speiser v Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 526 (1958)
“In practical operation, therefore, this procedural device must necessarily produce a result the State could not command directly. It can only result in a deterrence of speech which the Constitution makes free.”
And finally, of particular note is the statement in Perry v Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972):
“…this court has made it clear that even though a person has no ‘right’ to a valuable governmental benefit and even though the government may deny him the benefit for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not rely. It may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests – especially, his interest in freedom of speech. For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the government to “produce a result which (it) could not command directly.”
It was not for no reason that the Founders grouped together in the First Amendment Religious Liberty, Speech, Assembly and Petition Rights. Rather, these stated Rights have been held by the Supreme Court to be, together, “expressive association.”
We consider meaningful Informed Consent to be the sine qua non of humane health care required by International Humanitarian Law. Truly, no free person should be forced to consent to mandated medical interventions.
There can hardly be a more fundamental or central freedom issue than whether agents of government, or persons acting under color of state law, as are those who act to abrogate conscientious objections to mandated vaccines, can force a free and competent adult (or a child under the protection of such adult) to receive any medical treatment. That the treatment may be vaccination, which is not merely experimental and (sic) preventative but uninsurable and, according to many courts, “unavoidably unsafe” gives greater emphasis to the unconscionable personal sacrifice the individual is mandated to make. Such a mandate is inconsistent with status as a free person, rather than a slave. No free society can tolerate any such imposition.
“Liberty is to the collective body what health is to every individual body. Without health no pleasure can be tasted by man; without liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society.” – Thomas Jefferson
Ralph Fucetola JD
Attorney at Law in New Jersey
1971 – 2006
PS: I’d like to recommend Mary Holland’s spirited defense of Informed Consent here:
 Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
 Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hosp.,105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914)
 Thompson v. Western States Medical Center – 01-344, decided on April 29, 2002 – 535 U.S. 357)
 “Phase 4 trials are conducted after a product is already approved and on the market to find out more about the treatment’s long-term risks, benefits, and optimal use, or to test the product in different populations of people, such as children.”
Downloaded July 8, 2015: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm143531.htm
 “qui tacet consentire videtur” – “Thus, silence gives consent.” Sometimes accompanied by the proviso “ubi loqui debuit ac potuit“, that is, “when he ought to have spoken and was able to”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_%28Q%29
 The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties,and three additional protocols, that establish the standards of international law for thehumanitarian treatment of war. The singular term Geneva Convention usually denotes the
agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–45), which updated the terms of the first three treaties (1864, 1906, 1929), and added a fourth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
 http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html which provides: Article 6 – Consent –1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice. 2. Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice. Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law. Article 28 – Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any claim to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity… [Emphasis added]
 Missouri vs McNeely, 569 US _ (2013) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf –https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_v._McNeely
 See Justice Sotomayor’s 2011 dissent in Bruesewitz vs Wyeth, where she discusses the history of “unavoidably unsafe.”https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-152.ZD.html
 Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
A new article in the journal Pediatrics is calling on health professionals to stop saying that breastfeeding is natural, arguing that doing so gives the impression that natural parenting practices are healthier. The authors have started a public campaign to end the positive use of the word natural, claiming that it is associated with such “problematic” practices as home birth, homeschooling and the rejection of GMO foods, and that natural parenting movements are interfering with vaccination efforts. Continue reading Getting Rid of ‘NATURAL’ living practices. They interfere with Vaccination Philosophy.
The Leicester Anti-vaccination league was formed in 1869. It numbered 19 persons. it grew to such an extent that, whereas in 1867 over 94 per cent of the children born were vaccinated, in 1897 only 1.3 per cent of the infants were vaccinated.”
it wasn’t the pro-choice-safer poison-scardy cat people that won their freedom. IT WAS THE ANTI-VACCINATION group who wern’t afraid to stand up and and say I am anti-vaccine and stand their ground. Continue reading Back in the 1800’s – this battle for medical freedom is ongoing – anti vaccination movement.
A rare witness to history. What first strikes me is the unimaginable utter reality of control and how slow & naïvely it all developed over time before they knew they were had. Yes.. She is sending us an important message during these times.. and to never take for granted our freedom.
“I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history.
I would like to thank Larry Cook and Brandy Vaughn of LearnTheRisk.org for their never ending dedication in helping to bring our “National Vaccine Education Training Program” to reality.
It is our goal to create and train each state and each town in America an army of volunteers who will educate their friend’s family and neighbors about the dangers of toxic vaccines.
Over the next several weeks we will be adding content and training information that will allow even the most shy to approach anyone with confidence and determination.
Please help us get the word out about our “National Vaccine Truth Education Training Program”.