June 7, 2024: The 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals just ruled in favor of protecting individual human rights and bodily sovereignty of teachers and other staff of the Los Angeles School Unified District’s (LAUSD), reversing a lower court’s dismissal of their case against the LA County’s School District vaccine mandate for employees.
Announcing this huge win on behalf of their clients, Health Freedom Defense Fund issued a press release, stating that the case was won;
“On the merits, the majority ruled that the district court had misapplied the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts when it dismissed LAUSD’s lawsuit on grounds that the mandate was rationally related to a legitimate state interest. In Jacobson, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a smallpox vaccination mandate because it related to “preventing the spread” of smallpox.
The majority, however, noted that HFDF had alleged in the lawsuit that the COVID jabs are not “traditional” vaccines because they do not prevent the spread of COVID-19 but only purport to mitigate COVID symptoms in the recipient. This, HFDF had alleged in its complaint, makes the COVID jab a medical treatment, not a vaccine.
The court recognized that mitigating symptoms rather than preventing the spread of disease “distinguishes Jacobson, thus presenting a different government interest.” Based on this reasoning, the majority disapproved the trial court’s contention that, even if the jabs do not prevent the spread, “Jacobson still dictates that the vaccine mandate is subject to, and survives, the rational basis test.”
The court held that “[t]his misapplies Jacobson,” which “did not involve a claim in which the compelled vaccine was ‘designed to reduce symptoms in the infected vaccine recipient rather than to prevent transmission and infection.”’ Jacobson does not, the majority concluded, extend to “forced medical treatment” for the benefit of the recipient.”
When HFDF asked the court to opine as to whether or not the CDC’s claim that the COVID-19 vaccines were ‘safe and effective’, the court responded with the rhetorical question, “safe and effective for what?”
Legal Precedent for U.S. Citizens to Deny Medical Treatment
Per the HFDF press release, “Judge Collins wrote that the district court “further erred by failing to realize that [HFDF’s] allegations directly implicate a distinct and more recent line of Supreme Court authority” for the proposition that “a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment[.]” Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Washington v. Glucksberg, Judge Collins noted that the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment is “entirely consistent with this Nation’s history and constitutional traditions,” and that HFDF’s allegations in this case “are sufficient to invoke that fundamental right.”
The Kingston Report
A Legal Precedent is a LEGAL "Rule Of Law from God". It cannot be bought or suppressed.
A forced medical treatment which BionTech/Pfizer said should have been licensed as a Gene Therapy Injection (2015) and which targets the Dentric Cells in the Lymph Nodes (2023) - but what for?
..."If a tree falls down and there's no one to hear it, does it make a sound?"...this is the dumbest question ever asked. This means that before stupid man came along , all the falling trees or anything else made no sounds. It's the same with all sounds...man is not a requirement to be there to hear them. This is another liberal non-nonsensical precept based in stupidity.
Is your post serious? By virtue of you having written it in the tone you selected and how you closed it, we assume it is.
1. Your desire to state the obvious appears to reveal that you've missed the point. Which is to consider the adapted question that follows, as stated.
2. If the answer to the first question is yes, the answer to the following questions MIGHT be "yes", but, in his opinion, actually "it depends" on many things. Hence why he goes on to show why events which are not necessarily even real end up being made to matter to someone, even though they weren't there and are nothing to do with the events.
How does "it depends" also apply to the first question?
Do you not understand that there's a deliberate use of what you think is the "dumbest question ever" as the seed of a metaphor that is literally admitted and explained to you in the opening lines?
Odd that you think you need to literally explain "the dumbest question ever" as if no one reading this blog would know the standard, literal, logical answer to it.
Why is it the dumbest question ever? What purpose does that question serve? How can it be dumb to set up an intellectual hypothetical query to trigger a test of logic, physics and even metaphysics, even if you think you know the answer?
If a pressure wave needs to be detected by something that can convert pressure delta to the phenomena of sound e.g. an "ear", and there's no such sound detection method within range of a pressure wave then it could be said that a tree falling in a forest with no one around to hear does NOT produce a sound (even if it produces a pressure wave). Therefore, there is a way to consider the question through a different interpretive lens than you have, which makes it a more involved thought experiment than you recognise and the answer changes i.e. "it depends..." on how you view the question and how you define "sound", "among other things".
Just like it says in the following lines.
All of the above is implied in the lines that follow, depending upon how you read, interpret and think.
Which is the entire point.
Thank you for demonstrating a key tenet of the story:
Variation in the human perception of a given version of reality.
June 7, 2024: The 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals just ruled in favor of protecting individual human rights and bodily sovereignty of teachers and other staff of the Los Angeles School Unified District’s (LAUSD), reversing a lower court’s dismissal of their case against the LA County’s School District vaccine mandate for employees.
Announcing this huge win on behalf of their clients, Health Freedom Defense Fund issued a press release, stating that the case was won;
“On the merits, the majority ruled that the district court had misapplied the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts when it dismissed LAUSD’s lawsuit on grounds that the mandate was rationally related to a legitimate state interest. In Jacobson, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a smallpox vaccination mandate because it related to “preventing the spread” of smallpox.
The majority, however, noted that HFDF had alleged in the lawsuit that the COVID jabs are not “traditional” vaccines because they do not prevent the spread of COVID-19 but only purport to mitigate COVID symptoms in the recipient. This, HFDF had alleged in its complaint, makes the COVID jab a medical treatment, not a vaccine.
The court recognized that mitigating symptoms rather than preventing the spread of disease “distinguishes Jacobson, thus presenting a different government interest.” Based on this reasoning, the majority disapproved the trial court’s contention that, even if the jabs do not prevent the spread, “Jacobson still dictates that the vaccine mandate is subject to, and survives, the rational basis test.”
The court held that “[t]his misapplies Jacobson,” which “did not involve a claim in which the compelled vaccine was ‘designed to reduce symptoms in the infected vaccine recipient rather than to prevent transmission and infection.”’ Jacobson does not, the majority concluded, extend to “forced medical treatment” for the benefit of the recipient.”
When HFDF asked the court to opine as to whether or not the CDC’s claim that the COVID-19 vaccines were ‘safe and effective’, the court responded with the rhetorical question, “safe and effective for what?”
Legal Precedent for U.S. Citizens to Deny Medical Treatment
Per the HFDF press release, “Judge Collins wrote that the district court “further erred by failing to realize that [HFDF’s] allegations directly implicate a distinct and more recent line of Supreme Court authority” for the proposition that “a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment[.]” Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Washington v. Glucksberg, Judge Collins noted that the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment is “entirely consistent with this Nation’s history and constitutional traditions,” and that HFDF’s allegations in this case “are sufficient to invoke that fundamental right.”
The Kingston Report
A Legal Precedent is a LEGAL "Rule Of Law from God". It cannot be bought or suppressed.
A forced medical treatment which BionTech/Pfizer said should have been licensed as a Gene Therapy Injection (2015) and which targets the Dentric Cells in the Lymph Nodes (2023) - but what for?
..."If a tree falls down and there's no one to hear it, does it make a sound?"...this is the dumbest question ever asked. This means that before stupid man came along , all the falling trees or anything else made no sounds. It's the same with all sounds...man is not a requirement to be there to hear them. This is another liberal non-nonsensical precept based in stupidity.
Is your post serious? By virtue of you having written it in the tone you selected and how you closed it, we assume it is.
1. Your desire to state the obvious appears to reveal that you've missed the point. Which is to consider the adapted question that follows, as stated.
2. If the answer to the first question is yes, the answer to the following questions MIGHT be "yes", but, in his opinion, actually "it depends" on many things. Hence why he goes on to show why events which are not necessarily even real end up being made to matter to someone, even though they weren't there and are nothing to do with the events.
How does "it depends" also apply to the first question?
Do you not understand that there's a deliberate use of what you think is the "dumbest question ever" as the seed of a metaphor that is literally admitted and explained to you in the opening lines?
Odd that you think you need to literally explain "the dumbest question ever" as if no one reading this blog would know the standard, literal, logical answer to it.
Why is it the dumbest question ever? What purpose does that question serve? How can it be dumb to set up an intellectual hypothetical query to trigger a test of logic, physics and even metaphysics, even if you think you know the answer?
If a pressure wave needs to be detected by something that can convert pressure delta to the phenomena of sound e.g. an "ear", and there's no such sound detection method within range of a pressure wave then it could be said that a tree falling in a forest with no one around to hear does NOT produce a sound (even if it produces a pressure wave). Therefore, there is a way to consider the question through a different interpretive lens than you have, which makes it a more involved thought experiment than you recognise and the answer changes i.e. "it depends..." on how you view the question and how you define "sound", "among other things".
Just like it says in the following lines.
All of the above is implied in the lines that follow, depending upon how you read, interpret and think.
Which is the entire point.
Thank you for demonstrating a key tenet of the story:
Variation in the human perception of a given version of reality.