W. Va. Attorney General Opines Against Vaccine Mandates, Vaccine Passport Requirements – Reason.com

And here’s more analysis; I would take a different view myself on many of these issues (I think broad vaccine mandates and vaccine passport rules would be constitutional and wouldn’t violate federal law, so long as they have suitable medical exemptions), but I thought this was interesting and likely to be important, so I’m passing it along:

A broad state-employee mandate—especially one without exceptions—would not survive strict scrutiny, if for no other reason than the mandate’s overbreadth and lack of tailoring. “Stemming the spread of COVID-19 is unquestionably a compelling interest.” Yet a mandate for all employees to be vaccinated is not narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Most obviously, “there are many other less restrictive rules that could be adopted to minimize the risk.” Remote work, social distancing, frequent testing, altered shifts, and similar mechanisms are now familiar tools to limit spread of COVID-19; they stem the spread with less of an imposition on bodily integrity. Public information campaigns and the similar initiatives in place serve the State’s apparent interest in encouraging its employees to obtain the vaccine. At least without legitimate legislative findings describing why those other methods are insufficient, a broad mandate would likely fail constitutional review.

Also, a mandate fully embracing those who have had COVID-19—and who therefore may possess some natural immunity already—may be overbroad for the same reasons. See United States v. Arencibia (D. Minn. 2021) (noting how an individual’s prior infection with COVID-19 “provide[d] him with some natural immunity and lessen[[ed] his risk of re-infection”). Although data is still developing, research suggests that those with natural immunity may enjoy the same—or even greater— levels of protection that those who are vaccinated. See, e.g., Faye Flam, Vaccines Versus Covid-19: The Great Immunity Debate, WASH. POST (Sept. 7, 2021), available at https://wapo.st/3lcyyP6 (“People who had two Pfizer shots were about 27 times more likely to get symptomatic Covid-19 and eight times more likely to be hospitalized than were people who’d been infected.”). Insisting that persons who already enjoy a high level of protection against the disease to obtain an additional level of protection is not the least restrictive means of achieving the State’s interest in advancing public health. See, e.g., Chris Burt, George Mason Relents, Grants COVID-19 Medical Exemption to Professor, University Business (Aug. 17, 2021), available at https://bit.ly/2X8Ez7z (describing settlement of litigation brought by law professor with natural immunity against his employer).

If the State were to proceed with a mandate anyway, then the burden would fall on the State to show why the alternative mitigation measures or a more circumscribed mandate would not be as effective as a broader, universal mandate for state employees. Carrying that burden will be difficult for the State to do, especially if new variants challenge the effectiveness of vaccines, more individuals acquire long-lasting natural immunity, and state entities become used to life with limited mitigation measures in place.

In summary, a mandate that all state employees obtain a COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of employment offends the constitutional right to bodily integrity and personal medical decision-making.

Beyond the bodily-integrity issue, a wide-ranging state-employee mandate lacking any religious exemption would offend our constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom. “Texts and decisions of appellate courts dealing with the fundamental nature of religious liberty are almost without limit.” As the U.S. Supreme Court explained long ago:

“We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. … [The State may] respect[] the religious nature of our people and accommodate[] the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe…. But we find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.”

Zorach v. Clauson (1952).

Employment Division v. Smith (1990) stands apart from principles like these, and it does not adequately protect the free exercise of religion. Given the direction of the Court, however, it is conceivable, if not likely, that the Smith test will be buried soon—at least in this State. And once Smith is gone, the strict-scrutiny standard should apply in any free-exercise challenge, too. Once that happens, the tailoring problems already described would defeat the law— particularly as religious objectors would represent only a subset of state employees.

Even if the test in Smith were to survive, two other significant problems exist for a mandate in the religious sphere. For one thing, if a mandate provides for a medical exemption (as most every vaccination mandate now in place does), then that mandate should no longer be called “generally applicable.” At the same time, exempting religious objectors would not necessarily defeat the objective of reaching a high enough level of immunization to achieve herd immunity if national rates hold. See Seither R. McGill, et al., Vaccination Coverage with Selected Vaccines and Exemption Rates Among Children in Kindergarten—United States, 2019-20 School Year, 70 MMWR MORB. MORTAL. W’KLY REP. 75 (2021) (showing an average non-medical exemption rate of 2.5% from kindergarten compulsory vaccinations). For another thing, this situation appears to present a classic “hybrid rights” case. Free exercise is at stake, but so, too, is bodily integrity. We cannot say with certainty whether the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia would adopt the “hybrid rights” model that has so divided federal courts. But given that the Court has never spoken to the issue, it is at least plausible that the Court may embrace it.

Accordingly, if the State or state actor does not offer any religious exemption to a mandate that State employees be vaccinated, then such a mandate violates the West Virginia Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom.

Of course, the problems of a state-employee vaccine mandate go beyond the aforementioned analysis; additional challenges to such a mandate are likely to arise under federal and state law.

First, a mandate requiring vaccination under penalty of dismissal could be subject to a claim of disability discrimination. If an employee cannot get a COVID-19 vaccine because of a disability, and the State then dismisses him for it, then that dismissal could violate both the WVHRA and the ADA. An employer could find it hard to establish a “direct threat” on these facts given that many employees in this State have worked in the office without mandatory vaccines for several months. Even if the State can establish that a particular employee’s unvaccinated status poses a “direct threat,” then reasonable accommodations—such as the mitigation measures described above—would still seem to be available to reduce or eliminate that threat. For this reason, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) counsels that “an employer introducing a COVID-19 vaccination policy and requiring documentation or other confirmation of vaccination should notify all employees that the employer will consider requests for reasonable accommodation based on disability on an individualized basis.” EEOC, What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws § K.5 (updated May 28, 2021), available at https://bit.ly/3zQ0COB (“EEOC Guidance”).

Second, the State could unwittingly engage in religious discrimination if it requires all employees to be vaccinated without exception. An employee objecting to a vaccine based on bona fide religious grounds would be entitled to a reasonable accommodation. And any religious belief or practice would be enough to compel the employer to offer those accommodations, so long as the cost is insubstantial to the employer. The employee cannot insist on any specific form of accommodation. But where an employee raises a valid religious objection, and some reasonable accommodation is available, that accommodation must be offered.

Third, the State could face a disparate-impact discrimination claim. Given that disparities in vaccination rates among racial and ethnic populations have persisted, the State could face disparate-impact claims from members of those protected classes should a mandate be implemented. See Nambi Ndugga, Latest Data on COVID-19 Vaccinations by Race/Ethnicity, Kaiser Family Foundation (Sept. 9, 2021), available at https://bit.ly/2Vp7542 (providing data concerning disparities among vaccination rates); see also EEOC Guidance at K.1 (“[E]mployers that have a vaccine requirement may need to respond to allegations that the requirement has a disparate impact. … [B]ecause some individuals or demographic groups may face greater barriers to receiving a COVID-19 vaccination than others, some employees may be more likely to be negatively impacted by a vaccination requirement.”).

All together, these other state and federal laws confirm that an unmitigated law mandating that all state employees be vaccinated is ill advised and unlawful.

 

[II.] A Blanket Law Requiring All Public or Private Establishments To Demand That Patrons Present a “Vaccine Passport” Before Entry Is Unconstitutional Under the West Virginia Constitution and Conflicts with Other State and Federal Laws….

[A] requirement that a person show a vaccine passport to enter “either public or private establishments throughout the state” is a legal step too far. Such a far-reaching requirement effectively equals banishment from society, preventing a person from participating in even the most basic activities of society. It is one thing to impair a person’s right to social association—a right that has never been viewed as fundamental. Although courts have not yet addressed the question, it is quite another matter to insist on total isolation for the unvaccinated—an outcome that would seem to inevitably result from the lack of a passport.

A state-enforced, total prohibition on entry to public and private establishments could significantly impair the exercise of many fundamental rights—the right to worship, speak, assemble, petition, vote, travel, and more. And it should make no difference that the ultimate actor could well be a private entity, as your hypothetical contemplates that the State will have compelled the private entity to demand a passport in the first place.

These substantial impairments—whether examined through the lens of due process, equal protection, or the First Amendment—would, in our view, trigger strict scrutiny. And as already detailed, a law like this would struggle to meet the narrow-tailoring aspect of the strict-scrutiny analysis, especially if other mitigation methods have been used to good effect for some time.

Further, as with the hypothetical state-employee mandate, this universal vaccine passport would struggle to fit with other state and federal anti-discrimination statutes. For instance, a private business could find itself facing an ADA or WVHRA claim if it were compelled to bar an unvaccinated person from its premises and that person was unable to obtain the vaccine because of a disability. We recognize that the Department of Justice (the agency that enforces ADA Titles II and III) has not yet issued guidance on this issue. But we can imagine many troubling scenarios. For example, giving an unvaccinated-because-of-disability patron the chance to order takeout, while denying him the chance to eat in, might deny the guest a “like experience” and thus contravene the statute. Ultimately, the business would need to show that the vaccination “passport” requirement was an essential eligibility requirement justified by a patron’s “direct threat.” That analysis would track the similar rationale described above in the employment context.

Overall, any passport requirement would, in our view, present significant additional problems under the West Virginia Constitution—as well as state and federal law.

 

[III.] A Private Entity’s Choice to Require Employee Vaccination or Request Showing of a Vaccine Passport Without Exceptions Already Violates Federal and State Law, But the Legislature Could—and Should—Pass Additional Laws Banning Vaccine Mandates or Vaccine Passports.

While a private entity is not, as a general matter, subject to the same constitutional duties or restrictions as public entities, imposition of a vaccine mandate without exception may still give rise to some legal liability.

The anti-discrimination laws described above, including Title II, Title VII, the ADA, and the WVHRA, would still apply to both a private vaccine mandate and a request for a passport in a private business subject to these statutes. Thus, at a minimum, even private employers need to provide exceptions for religious-and disability-based objections for their employees.

In short, state and federal law may prevent private entities from imposing a blanket employee vaccination mandate.

To the extent that, as discussed above, state law does not expressly limit private entities from imposing vaccine-related initiatives, we believe this area is one ripe for legislative action— at a minimum, to provide for express religious or health exceptions to any such mandate. As a general matter, the West Virginia Constitution would not prevent the Legislature from banning both vaccine mandates (imposed by public or private entities) and vaccine mandates (imposed by the same). Even a broad ban—such as an amendment to the WVHRA like the Montana law— would not give rise to significant constitutional concerns, although it would impact the traditional framework for analyzing current anti-discrimination laws.

While we believe that such a restriction or model could be defended, we acknowledge that a federal court in Florida has enjoined enforcement of that State’s vaccine-passport bans, reasoning that they violate the First Amendment and substantially burden interstate commerce. See Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd. v. Rivkees (S.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2021). Among other things, the court did not believe that Florida had identified any compelling state interest that the law advanced. The court thought the law (1) did not protect medical privacy in any provable way; (2) did not stop other ways to invade a patron’s privacy, like simply asking about vaccine status orally; (3) did not prohibit private entities from discriminating against unvaccinated people; and (4) did not regulate employers. But in contrast to the view of the Florida court, West Virginia’s interest in preserving the liberty of its citizens is real. A conscientious Legislature can address these under-and over-inclusiveness issues addressed in the Florida district court’s opinions through careful drafting.

There should be no reason for hesitation in passing a ban on vaccine mandates or passport requirements or, at a minimum, requiring religious or medical exemptions in such requirements.



Source link

Attorney Matt DePerno: Arizona Audit Officials Were Threatened




Attorney Matt DePerno: Arizona Audit Officials Were Threatened – Forced to Water Down Audit Report (VIDEO)



















Tap here to add The Western Journal to your home screen.





Source link

Report: All evidence of fraud in Maricopa County will be handed over to the Attorney General

A draft report by We The People AZ Alliance on Improper Governmental Operations of the Maricopa County Elections Department and Board of Supervisors was presented to the Arizona state Senate on Friday, along with the official Maricopa County 2020 election audit results. This report will be submitted to the Attorney General, Mark Brnovich, for further analysis and consideration.

A copy of this report, obtained by Gateway Pundit, exposes damning statute and law violations that took place before, during, and after the November 2020 elections. The full report can be found here

“After nearly a year of scrutiny, distrust and expressed concerns from the citizens, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County Recorder and the AZSOS have refused to acknowledge concerns or make tangible changes to process, policy or enforcement to reassure the voters,” the report stated. 

“Instead, they have chosen to arrogantly take to social media and treat our legislators and citizens with disdain and disrespect. This makes it abundantly clear that the only relief for the people must come from our Attorney General and our Legislators” We The People AZ Alliance said in the report. 

The report found issues with mail-in ballots, specifically with ballot harvesting. Ballot harvesting was deemed illegal in Arizona in 2016, yet multiple observers and election workers in Maricopa found the practice still ongoing.

One witness, known in the report as “Witness 1” described seeing how ballots were harvested during the 2020 elections. 

Witness 1 said she was “reassigned to a different location” after reporting opened and unlocked ballot boxes at one location known as “Turf Paradise.”

The report also documented multiple people that received ballots for either deceased voters, voters that no longer live at the address that the ballot was sent to, or to voters that never lived at the address the ballot was sent to in the first place. 

The authors of the report demanded stricter signature verification processes to prevent ballot fraud from taking place in the near future, although it appears that standards “were lowered” in order to more “quickly” process and verify early and mail-in ballots. Another witness described this process as having “too many rejections of ballots each day,” so they were told to “just push them through.” 

The report also found that files were logged as altered, with some deleted on April 12 of this year, shortly before the Maricopa County election audit began. 

Among other pressing concerns, five areas of “malfeasance” were observed by the team regarding the November 2020 Maricopa County election results. Among these are non-compliance with election security protocols, network insecurity, conflicts of interest, deceptive practices, and Dominion Voting Systems’ Company and Machine Issues. 

Multiple officials within Arizona have decried for months that the November 2020 elections within the state had been tampered with, including President Trump himself. Many were largely ignored or dismissed by mainstream media outlets. 



Source link

BREAKING: Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich Releases Statement




BREAKING: Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich Releases Statement – “I Will Take Necessary Actions That Are Supported by Evidence and Where I Have Legal Authority”




















Tap here to add The Western Journal to your home screen.





Source link

Arizona audit flags thousands of suspect ballots, kicking issue to state’s attorney general

Long-awaited and engulfed in controversy from start to finish, the Arizona Senate’s election audit gave America a split decision while leaving the question of whether illicit ballots were improperly cast or counted to the state’s attorney general.

The audit released Friday afternoon through painstakingly technical testimony concluded the final count of votes in the state’s largest county of Maricopa showing President Joe Biden won Arizona was accurate, but it also included tens of thousands of ballots that were suspect and require more investigation.

The more than 50,000 ballots flagged by auditors for more investigation involved concerns ranging from people voting from addresses from which they had already moved to residents voting twice. The total in question was nearly five times the 10,400 vote margin that separated the two presidential candidates, giving Donald Trump’s troops fresh reason to call for more scrutiny.

The job of resolving the question now falls to Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican who has ambitions of winning a U.S. Senate seat in 2022.

Brnovich immediately seized the opportunity, announcing his office’s election integrity unit would review the questionable ballots to determine if further action was warranted.

“I will take all necessary actions that are supported by the evidence and where I have legal authority,” Brnovich tweeted a short while before the final official audit results were to be released. “Arizonans deserve to have their votes accurately counted and protected.”

Across the country, Republican efforts to audit results in states like Georgia, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania got a glimpse of what may be in store politically as well as a roadmap for what issues to review. Democrats and their media allies declared the election integrity issues to be over, while some prominent Republicans called on Arizona to decertify its results.

“There were significant and widespread irregularities and lawlessness in thousands of ballots, sufficient to overcome the margin of difference between Trump and Biden,” said Jenna Ellis, a key lawyer for Trump and chairwoman of the Election Integrity Alliance, which is aiding states in reviewing election issues.

“The 2020 election was irredeemably compromised, and Arizona’s legislature must do now what they failed to do in November — use their plenary authority under the U.S. Constitution and reclaim their delegates by decertifying the results, acknowledging that the certifications were based on incorrect accounting,” Ellis told Just the News. “We are in a constitutional crisis that demands accountability for the American People and election justice.”

Democrats had their own reasons to cheer: in particular the conclusion of a hand count of 2.1 million ballots.

The audit concluded that “there were no substantial differences between the hand count of the ballots provided and the official canvass results for the County,” meaning the count last November that declared Biden a winner was accurate. In fact, Biden picked up a small number of voters in the audit.

“This is the most important finding in the audit because the paper ballots are the best evidence of voter intent, and there is no reliable evidence that the paper ballots were altered to any material degree,” the report said.

But the auditors cautioned that finding did not allay concerns, citing a total of more than 50,000 ballots that appeared to pose significant questions. It recommended that Brnovich conduct a canvass of the voters in question and other investigative tactics to make “any conclusive determination.”

Nearly half of the votes flagged as suspicious — 23,344 — fell into a category called “ballots cast from individuals who had moved prior to the election.” They included 15,035 who moved within the county before the registration deadline, 6,591 who moved to another state before the registration deadline and 1,718 who moved to a different county before the registration deadline.

“Mail in ballots were cast under voter registration IDs for people that may not have received their ballots by mail because they had moved, and no one with the same last name remained at the address,” the report said.

The report noted the impacted ballots may have benefited Biden: 39.5% were from registered Democrats, 33% were Republicans, 26.5% were independents, and 1% came from Libertarians.

The review also flagged a large number of voters who potentially voted in Maricopa and at least one other county in the state. It said 5,295 voters cast ballots in Maricopa and at least one other county using “the same first, middle, last name and birth year.”

The final review also flagged a large anomaly in which there were 9,041 more ballots shown as returned in the official early voting file from individuals than were shown in the records of ballots that were mailed out. “In most of these instances an individual was sent one ballot but had two ballots received on different dates,” the auditors noted, saying possible explanations ranged from data entry errors to fraud.

During testimony, the CyberNinja consultants who conducted the audit also raised serious questions about the possible deletion of data from Maricopa County’s election computers.

Cybersecurity professional Ben Cotton said an anonymous user accessed the internet on one of the county’s computers that holds election data. Around the exact same time, files were purged from the system without any notice from the county.

“Obviously this requires an explanation,” Cotton said during his testimony. He went on to outline how this lack of data impacted the audit, as well as the county’s refusal to assist the investigators. 

“This may be a part of a normal process with how they handle votes, but the timing of this is suspect,” he continued.

When explaining what happened to the election data, he said, “We simply don’t know.”

The Cyber Ninja report did not specifically point to any evidence of widespread voter fraud. Still, it did make a list of recommendations including legislation that does not allow an election to be certified until the official canvas and final vote is fully reconciled.

Karen Fann, the Arizona Senate president who led the audit, said she believes it has turned up evidence of state laws being broken, an issue now left for Brnovich to resolve.

Even in the hours before the results were released, reactions to the leaked findings were aligned with political agendas. Democrats insisted the audit should put an end to claims of a stolen election and even made plans to summon the auditors before Congress.

Trump and his supporters cried foul, accusing the news media of ignoring legitimate questions about the ballots flagged as suspect.

“The Fake News is lying about the Arizona audit report!” the former president said. “The leaked report conclusively shows there were enough fraudulent votes, mystery votes, and fake votes to change the outcome of the election 4 or 5 times over.”



Source link

Attorney says COVID statistics are driven by money, not science

TUCSON, Arizona (LifeSiteNews) — Attorney Thomas Renz blasted hospitals as putting profits before patients by recategorizing flu patients as suffering from COVID-19 “because there’s a whole bunch more money in it for the hospitals if you call it COVID.”

Renz, an Ohio-based lawyer, is lead attorney in several high-profile cases against federal agencies related to fraud and violations of medical freedom rights. He is a featured speaker at the Truth for Health Foundation’s fourth conference on September 22, the focus of which is medical freedom.

Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D., the CEO of the Truth for Health Foundation, noted that Renz has been working alongside numerous families who have been denied access to life-saving healthcare and who have effectively been placed in “prisons of COVID wards,” being forcibly separated from their loved ones after requesting treatment protocols like that offered by America’s Frontline Doctors.

“What we’ve been seeing is that America’s jails have more visitation rights than COVID patients in America’s hospitals,” Vliet said. “This is unconscionable.”

Explaining the full scope of the widespread “medical tyranny,” Renz said the degree of deadliness associated with the novel coronavirus has been exaggerated, describing the overarching narrative thereof “a lie,” and showing that financial incentives have driven mass misdiagnoses of flu cases in favor of COVID.

“If you want to understand what’s happening in the hospitals, you have to start with understanding what’s happening more broadly from the beginning,” Renz said. “This is a disease that we know to be roughly as dangerous as the seasonal flu.”

Renz noted that “the seasonal flu kills lots of people in a given year,” and that it is not uncommon to have 100,000 people or more die from flu globally. “But last year was interesting,” he added, “because according to CDC statistics, there could have been well over two hundred and fifty thousand flu deaths.”

The reason behind the upsurge in possible flu deaths can be explained, Renz stated, by the similarity in expressed symptoms of both flu and COVID-19. “When you get diagnosed with the flu, your symptoms are identical to that of COVID. So, what they do is instead of calling it the flu and then treating the flu — like we historically would have — they call it COVID, because there’s a whole bunch more money in it for the hospitals if you call it COVID.”

Hospitals are rewarded with a 20 percent reimbursement bonus “on anything COVID-related,” Renz explained, including the prescription of remdesivir, an experimental antiviral drug once tested on Ebola patients, but swiftly dropped after 50 percent of trial participants died.

Renz noted that remdesivir has been linked to kidney failure, after which “it was pulled from trials, from clinical trials in the past, because it was killing too many of the patients who were taking it. It is a dangerous, dangerous drug. It’s not safe. It’s not effective.”

Despite numerous problems with remdesivir, including increased hospitalization and liver injury being tied to use of the drug, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the medicine for therapeutic use in COVID-19 patients.

The lawyer stressed that doctors have therefore been told they have to diagnose “anything that could be COVID” as such, “whether it’s COVID or not.”

The result of this indiscriminate practice, according to Renz, has been to misdiagnose influenza “hundreds of thousands of times.”

— Article continues below Petition —

10620 have signed the petition.

Let’s get to 12500!

Thank you for signing this petition!

Add your signature:

  Show Petition Text

It’s official: Joe Biden has announced that his Administration will be forcing COVID vaccinations on nearly 1/3rd of American citizens, blatantly disregarding the personal objections of millions of people and moving America ever closer towards a medical dictatorship.

We cannot stand for this unprecedented overreach, and we will not submit to Biden’s tyrannical public coercion efforts.

Please SIGN this urgent petition informing the President that you will NOT comply with these unconstitutional vaccine mandate orders issued by the Biden Administration, and that elected officials should act in their capacity to block these intrusive demands.

On Thursday, September 9th, Joe Biden announced the latest round of federal orders meant to further coerce large swaths of the public into getting the COVID vaccine — many against their will.

While the legal standing of these measures is, at best, dubious, the Biden Administration appears more ready than ever to gut our individual rights and practically erase medical autonomy in our country.

This latest escalation in overreach was announced via a televised speech in which Biden outlined a new “six-point plan” that includes far more than just six avenues to achieve mass medical compliance.

Among the most egregious new federal mandates are the following:

  • A requirement that all private businesses employing more than 100 people mandate their workers get the Covid-19 vaccine or submit to weekly testing (to be implemented by way of a new Department of Labor rule)
  • A requirement that all federal employees and federal contractors get the COVID vaccine
  • A requirement that all healthcare workers in facilities that receive reimbursement from Medicare and/or Medicaid (an estimated 17 million) get the Covid-19 vaccine without an alternative testing option
  • A requirement that all Head Start teachers get the COVID vaccine
  • A federal effort to lobby states to implement vaccine mandates for all school employees, and require regular testing of all students and school staff
  • A federal effort to lobby entertainment venues to require proof of vaccination or testing in order to grant entry to the public
  • A continuation of mask mandates on all federal properties and during interstate travel (i.e. planes, trains, buses)

All in all, these new vaccine mandates, which will go into effect within the coming weeks, will affect an estimated 100 million American workers — 2/3rds of the entire workforce!

And, according to an administration official, violations of these unconstitutional requirements could result in fines of up to $14,000.

While this is clearly a political ploy on the part of the Joe Biden and his team of power-hungry Washington insiders to shift the focus from their disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, the American public knows better: After nearly a year and a half’s worth of arbitrary, ever-changing, and unconstitutional government mandates in response to the COVID outbreak, it was always a given that the Biden Administration would ramp things up even further when it behooved them.

And now, it would seem that time has officially come.

“This is not about freedom or personal choice,” Biden uttered in his remarks, confirming his administration’s blatant dismissal of all Americans’ right(s) to accept or decline the experimental Covid-19 vaccine.

This is a stunning reversal from Biden’s declaration last December that “I don’t think [the vaccine] should be mandatory, I wouldn’t demand it to be mandatory.”

In fact, Biden even confirmed his intention to flout states’ rights in the process, warning that “If these governors won’t help us beat the pandemic I’ll use my power as president to get them out of the way.”

These are not the words of an “empathetic” leader; these are the words of an aspiring dictator. And, for the time being, the only way to stop Joe Biden’s tyranny is through mass noncompliance.

As we’ve said from the beginning, science, basic logic, and common sense should dictate policy regarding COVID and the Delta variant.

But Joe Biden and the federal government have long abandoned those principles throughout this crisis, culminating into this disturbing yet inevitable flurry of intrusive vaccine mandates that use people’s jobs, individual autonomy, and livelihood as leverage.

This assault on our individual rights, private businesses, and American workers cannot be tolerated, and the easiest way to combat these unlawful orders is to just say NO.

Please SIGN and SHARE this most important petition letting Joe Biden know that you will NOT comply with the unconstitutional medical demands being made by this administration, and that action should be taken to block any intrusive action against working Americans and private employers.

Thank you!

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

‘Biden announces vaccine requirements for private businesses, impacting tens of millions of Americans’: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-biden-announces-vaccine-requirements-for-private-businesses-impacting-tens-of-millions-of-workers/

One common ailment associated with seasonal flu is pneumonia. “If it’s untreated, that pneumonia then kills you in many cases … [but] they don’t want to treat this. They don’t want to do anything with this,” Renz said.

Thus, if someone were to contract the flu, “more times than not” the hospital will say they have COVID, Renz said, at which point many people are simply being sent home without treatment. “Finally, you’re just so sick that they have to admit you,” he added, explaining that by this time, “you’re as likely to come out alive as dead. That’s what we’re seeing over and over again.”

“They don’t care if you’ve got bacterial pneumonia. They don’t care if you’ve got a treatable disease. All they do is they treat you for COVID because you get a 20 percent reimbursement bonus for anything COVID-related, like remdesivir, which is already a hugely profitable thing.”

Many doctors are also forbidding supposed COVID patients from seeing their families if they refuse potentially fatal treatment plans like intubation and remdesivir. “As soon as you contest it [hospital treatment plan] in any way, shape, or form,” Renz related, “[if] you ask them about ivermectin” the doctors often will “not only not let your family come to see you, but they won’t even listen to your power of attorney or to your medical wishes.”

Instead, “when you say, ‘I don’t want to take remdesivir, I won’t take intubation’ … They come in, they stand at the end of your bed and scream at you about the fact that you’re going to die.” “I’ve got hospital after hospital, story after story,” Renz said, “and it’s not every patient and it’s not every hospital. But if that happens once, it’s too much and it’s happened many times. It’s happening way too often.”

Renz revealed that medics have been “harassing” patients, such as Veronica Wolski, who died in a Catholic hospital after being denied basic care and treatment, which he described as “torture.”

“These people are being tortured,” he continued, adding that by the time an attorney is contacted, they “can’t do anything.” “I hate to tell you that, but the patients die more times than not because they’re not treating the patients, they’re not doing anything.”

In fact, he explained that even after a patient has voiced protest against receiving remdesivir, for example, that some hospital staff in Ohio, where Renz is based, have been ignoring that instruction.

“That is a battery in Ohio, that is a crime,” he said, “it is absolutely a crime in Ohio and probably in most other states.”

Many patients have been restricted from receiving ivermectin, described by some as a “wonder drug” regarding its effectiveness at mitigating the effects of COVID, despite the National Institutes for Health (NIH) having listed the medicine “as an investigatory drug for COVID-19 … it’s right next to remdesivir,” Renz noted. He added that the American government has been prescribing ivermectin to illegal immigrants, yet strongly discouraging its use in hospitals for ordinary American citizens, incentivizing other therapies.

“This is a war on American citizens,” he said. “It’s not my doctor’s job to say you can’t have this. We’re not asking for some bizarre thing,” Renz stated, noting the case of Uttar Pradesh in India, where the government effectively “eradicated” the virus using ivermectin.

“You have got to fight this. We the people have got to stand up.”

“I don’t want to watch thousands and thousands of people keep dying while I’m going through the litigation process,” Renz stressed. “You’ve got to stand up for your rights. You’ve got to stand up for your freedoms. You’ve got to fight.”

Furthermore, the attorney argued that being denied healthcare rights or being forced into taking unwanted medication is tantamount to “being in prison.”

“In one case, you’re told you can’t move around. In another, you’re told you can move around only if you get a vaccine,” he said. “This this is the definition of coercion.”

“I am begging and pleading with everyone on this: If you are within reach of a phone, grab it, call your state rep, call your local reps, call whoever you can call … Get active, get organized, get involved. It’s going to take a long time through the courts, we’re trying, and we’ll get there, but we need you to be active, we need to be involved and we need you to help us. God bless you all.”



Source link

Judge in case of anti-Trump mudslinger is married to attorney for ex-FBI lawyer Lisa Page

From Just The News:

Officials say Judge Christopher Cooper’s ties to leading Democrats and key figure in discredited Trump-Russia probe should disqualify him from case of Michael Sussmann, lawyer who fed anti-Trump dirt to FBI while hiding connection to Hillary Clinton campaign.

Read More Here

 



Source link

Is Hillary Attorney Marc Elias in Legal Jeopardy Alongside Attorney Michael Sussmann? Is This Why He Left Perkins Coie?




Is Hillary Attorney Marc Elias in Legal Jeopardy Alongside Attorney Michael Sussmann? Is This Why He Left Perkins Coie?



















Tap here to add The Western Journal to your home screen.





Source link

Constitutional Attorney Held as Medical Hostage at Multicare Medical Center in Auburn, WA (VIDEO)

Constitutional Attorney Luis Ewing, who is notable in fighting against vaccine mandates and medical tyranny against Washington Governor Inslee and Oregon Governor Kate Brown, appears to have been held as a medical hostage at Multicare Medical Center in Auburn, Washington.

Mr. Ewing’s personal nurse advocate and power of attorney described everything in her interview with social media personality, Christopher Key.

Here’s an excerpt from the video below:

AT 1 am, he was very sick at that we were working with other people and a doctor who’s amazing who helped to him as fast as possible to get him on FLCCC protocol, get him oxygen, give him everything that he needed to recover. He started responding after we got him an Ivermectin, and he just started perking out. He did better. I just couldn’t get his O2 level high enough.

TRENDING: What’s Going On? Arizona Recently Processed 673,000 Voter Identities with the Social Security Administration – 58% Had NO MATCH FOUND

By Wednesday morning, his O2 level had dropped too much to where he was at risk of cardiac arrest. At that point, I called my friends who were helping me. We all agreed that we are honoring and respecting his wishes, all of us at the hospitals, we all know better.

We just wanted the fire department to come out, assess him and get his oxygen levels up. When they came out, they said, this man is really sick. I said we’re not admitting him to a hospital. We’re not doing anything like that. I just want him to sit there until I get there and get his oxygen levels up. And they said they agree to that. And just in case, I wrote on his chest “No Remdesivir” and “no venting”. I just didn’t trust them and I’m like, I swear to God anything happens to him. They got his numbers up to like 95.

By the time I got to the hospital, they had him vented and justified it saying he’s so sick, it’s COVId and all this bullsh*t. I lost my sh*t. I was adamant. I called you guys. I told you no venting. It’s written on him.

I was very out of it about that. The vent is especially too much air. It is going to hurt him. I said, get him off of it now. I stopped him.

The nurse came in after Luis has not been under any sedation for 2 hours. He was successfully being… with Fentanyl started to push it. I said this man is fighting to get off this vent.  He’s halfway off of it and I took pictures of everything of all his vitals. He was doing so good.

So after the fentanyl thing, all of a sudden the nurse shows up says you have to leave now. We’re going to arrest you.

In a viral photo, “Amber King” reported that Mr. Ewing was first checked in at a small hospital in Aberdeen with COVID symptoms. At the time, his personal nurse advocate and power of attorney was with him but then later was denied access. They gave him fentanyl immediately and put him on a ventilator and worsened his condition. He was later on transferred to Multicare Medical Center where communication is cut off to Luis and his doctors.

Mr. Ewing’s nurse advocate made it clear that he did not want to be put on a ventilator and want to follow FLCCC (Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance) protocol for covid patients and yet the two hospitals did not honor his directive.

One of Mr. Ewing’s friends, Tiffany Galloway, posted a notice on Multicare Health System’s Facebook page. She threatened the hospital asserting that they will file criminal charges accordingly if they fail to honor Mr. Ewing’s right.

Here’s an excerpt:

ATTENTION: Staff at MultiCare Medical Center in Auburn, WA

I am advocating for a patient in the ER named Luis Ewing. We have been made aware of the obstruction of S.4945 The Compassion Care Act and SB-5035, the Right-To-Try Act which gives those whom are terminally ill, the right to any and all experimental medications that have passed the Phase 1 test and can vast effect a positive outcome for the patient.

Your staff has been dishonoring Mr. Ewing’s wishes which have also been instructed to his power of attorney and medical power of attorney as well as the voices of concerned friends, including blatant dishonor and disregard for his own blood relatives.

In closing, if you persist in the dishonor of Mr. Ewing’s rights, criminal charges will be filed according to the following: RCW 9A.28.040 – Criminal Conspiracy, RCW 9A.28.020 – Criminal Attempt, RCW 9A.32.050 – Murder in the Second Degree, RCW 9A.40.020 – Kidnapping; On a Federal Level, 18 USC 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights; 18 USC 242 – Conspiracy against rights under color of law; 18 USC 1201 – Kidnapping and the first, third and fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

It is hereby demanded, according to the law that you give Luis the treatment that HE and his POA have set forth and that arrangements be made to stabilize him and return him to the care of his loved ones.

Regards,

Friends of Luis Ewing

Luis Ewing, 59, is very bold in his stands against the COVID vaccine mandate and medical tyranny. On his Facebook post, he explained that he is not a regular State Bar Attorney nor has he ever taken or passed any State Bar Examination nor has he ever joined the criminally ‘corrupt Washington Bar Association’.But he is “authorized to practice law” under “the common law rule”. He even purposely let his Bar memberships expire because he doesn’t want to be affiliated with ‘conspiracy with any bar association’.

A group of his supporters is rallying to protest because the hospital is holding him against his will. Call the hospital and demand to follow his will.

Let’s pray for Luis Ewing’s safety and fast recovery.

Here is the conversation between Christopher Key and Luis Ewing’s personal nurse advocate and power of attorney regarding the terrible situation of Mr. Ewing’s hospitalization.

(The Gateway Pundit has reached out to the hospital, to Mr. Ewing’s personal nurse advocate and power of attorney and to Tiffany Galloway for a comment. We will update this story if we get more information.)





Source link

Judge in case of anti-Trump mudslinger is married to attorney for ex-FBI lawyer Lisa Page

Last week, the special counsel appointed to oversee the probe into the FBI’s investigation of former president Donald Trump indicted Michael Sussmann, a lawyer for the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. Republicans and Trump allies are optimistic about the latest development in John Durham’s investigation but are still concerned that Attorney General Merrick Garland might halt the investigation to protect allies and even the president himself. 

FBI notes appear to suggest that as vice president, Joe Biden played a role in the Democratic Party project to smear Trump as a Russian asset by raising the obscure, disused, 18th century statute the Logan Act as a possible vehicle for prosecuting Michael Flynn for speaking with the Russian ambassador to Washington — even after FBI case agents had cleared Trump’s incoming national security adviser of wrongdoing. 

And now Republicans are raising concerns that the judge appointed to the Sussmann case has too many conflicts of interest to preside over it fairly. 

Current and former officials say that federal District Court Judge Christopher Cooper’s professional and personal relationships with top Democrats and figures behind the FBI’s Trump investigation should force his recusal. Cooper’s wife, for instance, represents disgraced FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who oversaw the FBI’s Trump probe.

In September 2016, Sussman met with Page’s boss, then FBI General Counsel James Baker. The former DOJ cybersecurity expert handed Baker documents falsely asserting that the Trump Organization’s computer servers were communicating suspiciously with the computer servers of a Russian financial institution. 

The purpose of the documents Sussmann passed to the FBI was to further the Clinton campaign’s false narrative holding that Trump had been compromised by Russian officials. Former CIA director John Brennan reported to President Obama that Clinton herself approved the scheme in order to deflect attention away from her use of a private email server. 

Sussmann billed the Clinton campaign for his meeting with Baker but told the FBI’s top lawyer he was not acting on behalf of any client. The indictment handed down last week by Special Counsel John Durham charged Sussman with one count of lying to the FBI.

Last Friday, Sussmann pled not guilty, and on Wednesday he is scheduled to appear before Cooper. 

Appointed to the bench by Obama in 2013, Cooper is well-connected in Democratic party legal circles. Garland officiated his 1999 wedding to Amy Jeffress.

Both Cooper and Jeffress worked at DOJ in the Obama administration. He was part of the 2008 presidential transition team, and she was the national security counselor for Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder. 

Recently Jeffress wrote approvingly of Attorney General Garland’s focus on “domestic terrorism.” Many Republicans see the phrase as coded language for targeting Trump supporters.  

Her most famous client, former FBI lawyer Page, discussed via text message with her paramour, FBI agent Peter Strzok, how they’d stop Trump from becoming president. Page and Strzok were part of the FBI team that spied on the 2016 Trump campaign. 

As evidence to obtain the spy warrant, the FBI used a dossier of memos falsely alleging Trump ties to Russia that was paid for by the Clinton campaign. Sussman and Page then participated in the same Clinton-funded initiative to smear her 2016 opponent and use false evidence to spy on his campaign.   

Former U.S. officials say that putting Sussmann in front of Jeffress’ husband represents a clear conflict of interest.  

“This is a wildly unique situation,” says Kash Patel, who ran the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation of possible crimes and abuses committed during the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe. 

“Usually it’s defense lawyers who put in for recusal,” says Patel. “But in this case, it should be the Justice Department’s special counsel, Durham. The judge’s wife happens to be the lawyer for a possible a coconspirator.”

Patel, a former federal prosecutor, predicts that in this instance it’s the defense lawyers who will be fighting recusal. “Sussman is indicted for not telling the FBI’s general counsel he was working on behalf of the Clinton campaign, he says. “And that same general counsel, Baker, supervised Lisa Page, who is represented by the judge’s wife.”

Page’s Twitter profile shows a picture of her and Jeffress.

“The presumption is that a spouse’s independent professional activities don’t necessarily require a judge to recuse unless a spouse has a substantial interest in the outcome of the proceeding,” says Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch. “Washington, D.C. is a small town, and the resulting interlocking relationships result in all sorts of apparent conflicts of interest in the justice system here.”

Nevertheless, says Fitton, “obviously we want justice to be administered fairly, but it must also appear to be administered fairly. This is an unusual fact pattern that requires Judge Cooper to seriously and carefully analyze whether he should recuse himself.”

Patel believes he should.

“What if the judge for Paul Manafort’s case had been married to the lawyer that represented Roger Stone, and William Barr had officiated their wedding?” he asks. “Would the media think that’s ok? This is why America hates D.C. — one set of rules for those you rule over, but a different set for those that rule.”





Source link