What is going on?

Post Reply
levipatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 182
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2021 9:07 am

What is going on?

Post by levipatrick »



Hi,

You all sounded great on the County Board call!

The attached paper goes over how a decision to impose a $5 fine for vaccination refusal has been changed to allow forcible bodily intrusions. I have read the 1905 “opinion” and most is opinion, bringing up examples as board member Browne did about sewage and other laws that protect the general populace.

Even in this 1905 opinion, it intimates that his opinion could change if it were proven to be seriously injurious, may result in death and that the majority of doctors and public deem it safe while decenters remain few.

This article shows how a few cases over the ensuing century have made Jacobson v. Mass into something it is not. When I look at the bigger picture, I have no doubt that this is part of the Eugenicists plan to gain control over life and death. Eugenics was quite popular then and you have probably heard of many States doing forced abortions and sterilizations early in the 20th century. The Eugenicists’ ancestors still hold fast to this “religion” based on Thelmetic beliefs which in turn based on similar religious movements such as Madam Blavatsky. Many of the eugenical beliefs are now incorporated into Transhumanism.

Truth is better than fiction. Have you heard of Jet Propulsion Lab or JPL? Many say it is named for Jack Parsons Lab who was clearly into sexual magic and knew Aleister Crowley. Jack then met L. Ron Hubbard of Scientology fame who turned many of these beliefs into Scientology. These dark religions are all around us but now being more openly practiced. The movie Eyes Wide Shut is an example of this and could have gotten the famous Stanley Kubrick killed. Mostly you find the version with some missing yet still it is telling about what goes on within the elite circles.

Did you hear about the NEWS that Roe V. Wade, which is part of the above procession to make Jacobson v. Mass something it is not, was all fake? There was no rape and the baby was never aborted and is alive today stating the falsehood. This is the top hit on a quick search for it: https://www.liveaction.org/news/roe-v-w ... -abortion/

In summary, I see this all as a systematic creep toward control by targeting key positions at key times. These people, like Gates, have the money, planning and look generationally ahead. Sounds crazy? Not when you see it as their religion. Do you not teach your prodigy the same continuity?

SO, I better stop or you will not want to read it. LOL

Hugs,
Levi



Abstract of: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=3906452


The Irrepressible Myth of Jacobson v. Massachusetts
Buffalo Law Review Vol. 70, No. __
107 Pages Posted: 23 Sep 2021 Last revised: 24 Sep 2021

Josh Blackman
South Texas College of Law Houston
Date Written: August 17, 2021

Abstract
During the COVID-19 outbreak, Jacobson v. Massachusetts became the fountainhead for pandemic jurisprudence. Courts relied on this 1905 precedent to resolve disputes about religious freedom, abortion, gun rights, voting rights, the right to travel, and many other contexts. But Justice John Marshall Harlan’s decision was very narrow. It upheld the state’s power to impose a nominal fine on an unvaccinated person. No more, no less. Yet, judges now follow a variant of Jacobson that is far removed from the Lochner-era decision. And the Supreme Court is largely to blame for these errors. Over the course of a century, four prominent Justices established the irrepressible myth of Jacobson v. Massachusetts. This myth has four levels.

The first level was layered in Buck v. Bell (1927). Justice Holmes recast Jacobson’s limited holding to support forcible intrusions onto bodily autonomy. The Cambridge law did not involve forcible vaccination, but Holmes still used the case to uphold a compulsory sterilization regime. The second level was layered in 1963. In Sherbert v. Verner, Justice Brennan transformed Jacobson, a substantive due process case, into a free exercise case. And he suggested that the usual First Amendment jurisprudence would not apply during public health crises. The third level was layered in 1973. In Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmun incorporated Jacobson into the Court’s modern substantive due process framework. Roe also inadvertently extended Jacobson yet further: during a health crisis, the state has additional powers to restrict abortions. The fourth layer is of recent vintage. In South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, Chief Justice Roberts’s “superprecedent” suggested that Jacobson-level deference was warranted for all pandemic-related constitutional challenges. This final layer of the myth, however, would be buried six months later in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo. The per curiam decision followed traditional First Amendment doctrine, and did not rely on Jacobson. But Jacobson stands ready to open up an escape hatch from the Constitution during the next crisis. The Supreme Court should restore Jacobson to its original meaning, and permanently seal that escape hatch

This article, written in the midst of the pandemic, will revisit, repudiate, and replace the irrepressible myth of Jacobson v. Massachusetts.
Keywords: Constitutional Law, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, Buck v. Bell, Sherbert v. Verner, Roe v. Wade, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo

Suggested Citation:
Blackman, Josh, The Irrepressible Myth of Jacobson v. Massachusetts (August 17, 2021). Buffalo Law Review Vol. 70, No. __, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3906452









From:
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 1:00 AM
To: Levi Patrick
Subject: Re: Federal Judge Grants Injunction Against NY COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate for Health Care Workers


One of the Speakers at the meeting spoke briefly about that 1905 case at the meeting. This experimental gene-therapy is not a 'vaccine' and still has EUA, the Comirnaty is the only FDA approved gene-therapy and it's not even on the market yet!


On Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 7:29 PM Levi Patrick <> wrote:
Federal Judge Grants Injunction Against NY COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate for Health Care Workers
In a separate case, judge rejects racial bias challenge to NYC passport system
BY ZACHARY STIEBER

October 12, 2021 Updated: October 13, 2021

A federal judge on Tuesday ruled in favor of 17 New York state healthcare workers who objected due to religious reasons to getting a COVID-19 vaccine.
The judge said defendants, state officials, failed to adequately explain why workers were denied religious exemptions to a vaccine mandate imposed in August.
“There is no adequate explanation from defendants about why the ‘reasonable accommodation’ that must be extended to a medically exempt health care worker under 2.61 could not similarly be extended to a healthcare worker with a sincere religious objection,” U.S. District Judge David Hurd, a Clinton nominee, wrote in a 27-page ruling. granting a preliminary injunction and allowing the workers to proceed under pseudonyms.

Plaintiffs argued the Aug. 26 mandate issued by the state, or § 2.61, violated their constitutional rights because it essentially forbids employers from taking into account religious accommodations.

Hurd agreed, saying the principal question is whether the state’s mandate “conflicts with plaintiffs’ and other individuals’ federally protected right to seek a religious accommodation from their individual employers.”

“The answer to this question is clearly yes. Plaintiffs have established that § 2.61 conflicts with longstanding federal protections for religious beliefs and that they and others will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief,” he added.

The Thomas More Society is representing the healthcare workers. Stephen Crampton, a Thomas Moore attorney, said the ruling “is very clearly a decision supporting the constitutional rights of these medical workers whose requests for religious exemption to the vaccine mandate were rejected by Governor [Kathy] Hochul and her administration.”

Hochul, a Democrat, said in a statement: “My responsibility as Governor is to protect the people of this state, and requiring health care workers to get vaccinated accomplishes that. I stand behind this mandate, and I will fight this decision in court to keep New Yorkers safe.”
In a separate ruling released Tuesday, a different federal judge rejected a challenge to New York City’s COVID-19 vaccine credentialing system.
The plaintiffs in the case, a group of business owners and others who work and live in the city, said the executive orders forcing many businesses to require proof of vaccination for entry violated their constitutional rights.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat, in August ordered restaurants, gyms, and indoor entertainment venues to start barring people not vaccinated against the virus that causes COVID-19. The order established a system called Key to NYC that helps implement the new requirements.

The emergency executive order (EEO), along with two others, mandate that New Yorkers who don’t get a vaccine due to their religious beliefs will be unable to dine out or go to exercise facilities, plaintiffs asserted. It also bars from many establishments those who enjoy so-called natural immunity, or post-infection protection against the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus.
Levels of vaccination are much lower among minorities in New York, a bid to get the order blocked also stated.

But U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan, a George W. Bush nominee, rejected the arguments and said he would not impose a preliminary injunction against the order.

Vaccine proof requirement note displays at a restaurant storefront in New York on Sept. 7, 2021. (Chung I Ho/The Epoch Times)
Cogan ruled that the city has “rational justifications” for the orders, including the rise of COVID-19 cases seen after the Delta variant became prevalent in the United States and the increase in cases recorded among people who got a vaccine.

The orders do not racially discriminate or discriminate against certain religions, Cogan added in a 27-page ruling dated Oct. 10 and released on Oct. 12, because they differentiate solely between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

Additionally, the judge cited the Supreme Court’s 1905 ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts in saying people do not have a fundamental right to refuse vaccination.

“This case is even easier than Jacobson because the city ‘does not require every adult member of the public to be vaccinated,'” Cogan wrote, quoting a more recent ruling. “Instead, vaccination is merely required for those who want to obtain or retain access to ‘covered premises.’ Thus, these EEOs are not forcing New Yorkers to get vaccinated. They are merely placing restrictions on those who choose not to.”

Attempts to paint the orders as violating plaintiffs’ rights to pursue a chosen occupation, to raise one’s children, and negatively affect business efficiency were also ruled insufficient by the judge.

“We’re pleased with the decision. Key2NYC is an integral tool to get more people vaccinated and for the city’s recovery,” a spokesman for New York City’s Law Department told The Epoch Times in an email.

Rob DeLuca and Alison Marchese, two of the plaintiffs, told The Epoch Times via email, “While we are disappointed in today’s ruling, we will shortly file a Notice of Appeal, and we intend to fight on all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Our attorneys have raised a compelling argument that every single existing public and private vaccine mandate in this country violates federal statute, among other claims.”

“We ask every patriot to join us by contributing whatever they can on our crowdfunding link. We also ask every restaurant to join IROAR to give us even greater strength,” they added.

Correction: A previous version of this article misattributed a quote. Rob DeLuca and Alison Marchese, two of the plaintiffs, reacted to the ruling. The Epoch Times regrets the error.

Zachary Stieber
REPORTER
Follow
Zachary Stieber covers U.S. news, including politics and court cases. He started at The Epoch Times as a New York City metro reporter.
zack stieber zack stieber



Virus-free. www.avg.com
Post Reply