SZwanglos – Following Feed

This is ridiculous

R to @GodsRiddles: The hammer starts dropping within 24 hours at the Supreme Court and will continue as 5 petitions are being filed in the next 30 days, exposing the corruption and abuse of federal court procedures to push a communist agenda on the USA.

The 5th, 9th, and 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, taking over the appellate arguments from police, firefighters, teachers, surgeons, doctors, and nurses, ruled that public and private entities can mandate the use of investigational drugs & require a waiver of right to sue if injured by the drug, all conditioned on benefits. These judges "lawyered" on behalf of defendants, ruling on a made up and new legal theory not advanced by the defendants, while NOT permitting the plaintiffs to counterargue, violating the Principle of Party Presentation, a most egregious sin and a pure violation of due process. In effect, these courts dismissed the case on an argument no one made but them, which violates federal law, the Constitution, and executive branch agreements. This is the assault the American people are under right now!

TY all for the help, I got what is needed!

I need help-I need an article or official source of authority discussing "hot lots" of COVID-19 drugs that caused harm to the public. Does anyone have anything along those lines?

The 9th Circuit claimed that a 1905 case, Jacobson, controls a case brought by nurses against Gov. Inslee. Problem for the 9th? The Jacobson court first determined whether the public health policy violated federal law; if it did, it would have ruled in the plaintiffs' favor. Guess what :) Gov. Inslee violated his federal contract by mandating the use of investigational COVID-19 drugs. SCOTUS will have its hands full with this one.

R to @GodsRiddles: Texas and the following states filed an amicus in support of your rights to refuse unwanted med treatment.

R to @GodsRiddles: HOWEVER...please note that even option #3 will cause heartburn because now the government will have to prove that vaccines do prevent a disease based on science, not a politician's claim. This impacts the childhood vaccine schedule like you can't imagine.

R to @GodsRiddles: Here is the petition brought by @theHFDF - https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-765/379457/20251013130055373_25A-ApplicationForExtensionOfTime.pdf

The Health Freedom case before SCOTUS is of major national importance and will determine when, where, and how you have ANY right to refuse medical treatments you do not want. It's serious business! The case involves Health Freedom suing the Los Angeles Unified School District over its vaccine mandate, and how the 9th Circuit applies the 1905 Jacobson case to any set of facts involving mandates. In this case, the 9th held that even if the drugs do not prevent the disease but only mitigate its symptoms, the state can still mandate them. At the 9th en banc level, more than 40 states and interested parties filed an amicus. Here are my predictions: SCOTUS will take the case for certain, as it requested that the defendants reply, and the 9th Circuit's opinion violates the Supreme Court's precedent on the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment. Once before the Court, it is presented with 3 requests: (a) vacate Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), the case the 9th said controlled all vaccine mandates in the nation under ANY circumstance; (b) treat all vaccine mandates under the strict scrutiny review standard, which requires the state to prove that it has a very limited, narrow, and compelling reason to mandate the drugs' use; or (c) hold that if a drug does not prevent the spread of a disease then Jacobson does not apply. My 100% personal gut feeling opinion is below. Not saying that it will 100% happen, just an honest opinion based on the current environment. (1) SCOTUS will not vacate Jacobson as it used that case a coupleof years ago in two cases to justify its own ruling. One brought by Navy Seals and one involving the CMS Mandate. (2) The court "SHOULD" require strict scrutiny review to align with modern day application of the right to refuse unwanted med treatments, but I put the odds at less than 50% for that to happen; (3) AT BARE MINIMUM it will rule that it requires a drug to prevent the spread of disease that must be proven as the basis for any vaccine mandate. Based on my intuition, I doubt we'll see five justices agree that strict scrutiny should apply in all circumstances. Instead, I anticipate the Court opting for a straightforward path to uphold its precedent: a drug that doesn't prevent transmission falls outside the scope of Jacobson v. Massachusetts. If it merely mitigates symptoms, it's purely a medical treatment, aligning with the precedents in Washington v. Glucksberg and Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, which affirm that individuals have held the right to refuse such interventions without consequence since as far back as 1600s common law.

The Ninth Circuit established judicial precedent that no one in America has a "fundamental right" to refuse the administration of an investigational new drug without consequences. They did this while also denying plaintiffs the right to respond or to require the district court to permit discovery to substantiate their sua sponte decision. However, the 6th Circuit, DC Circuit, and the Supreme Court, have all held that no person has a constitutional right to access such drugs. So, the same drug you can't access, even if you're dying, is the same drug you can lose your career over, because you are healthy and don't want to potentially die by taking the drug. The Supreme Court is about to have 9 opportunities to correct the Ninth Circuit's madness. This is the reality version of 'The Island of Dr. Moreau.'

In 1979, SCOTUS held under U.S. v. Rutherford, that there is no exception to the prohibition of introducing unapproved med treatments into commerce outside of the FDCA framework. The 9th Circuit, in Curtis v. Inslee, that the state can mandate an unapproved drug if it believes it could benefit a public health need. The 9th just did what the 10th Circuit did under Rutherford, it established a judicial exception to the prohibition in violation of its constitutional authority. Supreme Court petition inbound!

FOUR Petitions going to SCOTUS from the 9th Circuit where that court held that Jacobson and Health Freedom cases meant that the state can mandate firefighters, police, and healthcare workers to inject investigational drugs, engage in medical research, and surrender their right to sue if injured as a condition of public employment. Your kids are next, if we don't win.

In the 10th Circuit, the court said the plaintiffs (nurses) did not bring a claim that the state was under a contract not to mandate the use of investigational drugs in their original complaint. Problem? That agreement was referenced on 19 pages in the complaint, including the state's federal contract number, with specific allegations regarding the duties owed to the nurses under the contract. The 10th said they would not consider the argument, which proved the court could not use a rational basis to justify its ruling. This is how far the courts are going to hide the truth from America.

I love how the American people are not waiting around. Pro Se filer going hard over COVID-19 termination. Courts are certainly aligned against those who refused.

Sorry, I've been so quiet, but work to save the Republic comes before talking about how to save it. :) I'd rather be in the ring than on the sidelines, baby! Stay tuned this week for an update.

ACLJ, with Jay Sekulow, files lawsuit defending a church from a MULTI-MILLION dollar fine imposed by Gov. Newsom over COVID-19 mandates. https://aclj.org/religious-liberty/aclj-petition-at-the-us-supreme-court-regarding-newsoms-million-dollar-covid-fines-against-church

No, this is horrendous on every imaginable level. Trump is 100% wrong on this endorsement. If you love America, you want Cory Mills removed from office.

Justice? Not in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Nurses alleged that CO and UCHA were contractually and statutorily prohibited from mandating investigational drugs. Both the district and appellate courts refused to acknowledge plaintiffs even made such an allegation. Literally!

R to @GodsRiddles: WOW...X suppressing this post like nobody's business.

The most consequential Supreme Court petition will be filed next week. It will ask the court if a state can require police, firefighters, and healthcare workers to inject experimental drugs into their bodies, publicly disclose private health data to medical researchers and surrender all rights to sue if injured by the drugs as a condition of public employment or use of a state issued professional license. Fundamental rights of privacy, due process, and bodily integrity are on the line for all Americans.

Multiple reports indicate that the US has deployed more than 80 C-17 military lift aircraft to the Middle East. This is an extremely significant development. Additionally, two carrier groups, 9 Littoral Combat Ships, 8 guided missile destroyers, and other support ships departed.

R to @GodsRiddles: This statute is the EUA Authorization for unlicensed medical products.

I asked Grok: "Does 21 USC 360bbb-3(l) prohibit the HHS Secretary from mandating persons to participate in authorized activities?" Reply: "Yes, 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(l) explicitly prohibits the HHS Secretary from mandating persons to participate in authorized activities. The subsection states: "Nothing in this section provides the Secretary any authority to require any person to carry out any activity that becomes lawful pursuant to an authorization under this section." This limitation ensures that the Secretary cannot compel individuals, manufacturers, or other entities to engage in activities (e.g., manufacturing, distributing, administering, or receiving EUA products) that are authorized under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). The provision emphasizes voluntariness, with an exception requiring sole-source manufacturers to notify the Secretary if they decline to participate. This aligns with the statute's focus on facilitating emergency responses without granting coercive powers to the Secretary." Even Grok knows what courts are refusing to acknowledge.

This is so awesome! Gonna crack you up.

It's far worse than they realize! MUST LISTEN!

R to @GodsRiddles: These courts issued such rulings to override the FDCA's federal supremacy for the purpose of subjecting Americans to experimental drugs under threats of economic penalty. It's time for HHS to enforce its Congressional duties to ensure we are never under pressure to use such drugs under such conditions.

In 1938, under the newly enacted Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, Congress said that NO PERSON can introduce drugs into commerce before FDA approval. The 3rd, 5th, 9th, and 10th Circuit Courts have now declared that any state, city, mayor, or hospital CEO can authorize such use.🧵

R to @GodsRiddles: I will be at the hearing on Monday to support the family. The court will decide if the mother can stay the mother or will the state become the parent. Answers are needed.

ERSTAUNLICH...Der Dritte Gerichtskreis ZERTRÜMMERT EINE RECHTLICHE ATOM-BOMBE im Zusammenhang mit COVID-Vorschriften. Da

Parents in Pennsylvania—BEWARE. The Third Circuit openly declared that it will not distinguish between the laws, includi

The Fifth Circuit TRIED to shut down America's right to challenge unconstitutional governmental conduct, but the Supreme

This is great news for the American people. The 10th Circuit ignored BASIC constitutional law and Supreme Court preceden

The Ninth Circuit, now in 4 different cases, has held that federal courts need not inquire whether a state health policy

Breaking… the EU just announced that there will be food rationing forthcoming. This, after years of destroying farms to