04/25/2024
Bait and Switch Trickery -
An "Egregious" Court Decision
Undermining Sate Legislation and Body Autonomy
“NC Court Rules Federal PREP Act Protects
Forced Vaccination Without Parental Approval"
The North Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled against a mother and son who sued the Guilford County school board and the Old North State Medical Society over a 14-year-old boy's forced COVID-19 vaccination. This ruling was March 5th, 2024.
The vaccination (the bait) was done without parental consent and against the boy’s consent. The court acknowledged that the intent of the state law is to protect bodily autonomy and parental rights and that the violation suffered by the plaintiffs by being forced to take the shot against his wishes was outrageous and "egregious".
North Carolina state law provides that “a health care provider shall obtain written consent from a parent or legal guardian prior to administering any vaccine that has been granted emergency use authorization and is not yet fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to an individual under 18 years of age,”
Pay close attention to the vocabulary, “emergency use authorization” is not the same as “countermeasure” (the switch), according to the court as you read further along.
Nevertheless, even though the Court of Appeals said it was an "egregious” act there is no recourse. The son was given the Pfizer/BioNTech Comirnaty COVID shot. The Appeals Court reached a unanimous decision against the mother and son.
The state statute was preempted by the federal act of Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act of 1905 (PREP Act). The court concluded that the Guilford Board of Education, which hosted the clinic was not at fault. They based this on three other out of state cases. So we are seeing a development of case precedents to establish this case's rulings.
The boy had attended a free COVID clinic to be tested since he had been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus and needed clearance to attend football practice. The letter informing him of the clinic stated, “consent for testing is required.”
However, testing and being vaccinated are two different things. Another "bait and switch".
There was no body autonomy, no parental consent, no personal consent, no protection by state law, no informed consent, a misleading statement of consent and forced to receive the "vaccination". An outrageous situation proving our Medical Rights are not protected by Courts and the Federal government. Rather, they are taken away.
Also very dangerous is that this court case included battery charges. This determination means that the PREP Act can include a physically forced “countermeasure” (bait), called a 'vaccination" (switch). What other things does a “countermeasure“ include? What remains on the horizon could forebode the worst with "countermeasure" defined as quod libet (whatever you like).
The PREP Act goes hand in hand with tyranny, despotism and medical enslavement. The PREP act goes even further by giving immunity to any “covered person” and who may that be in the future? Who can do what to whom? What other rights we hold dear are in danger and easily ignored? Will eventually the term "covered person" include other than a person, such as a robot?
Here are details from the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) which states explicitly that any other law to the contrary is subject to the PREP Act as stated:
Subject to the other provisions of this section, a covered person shall be immune from suit and liability under Federal and State law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or the use by an individual of a covered countermeasure if a declaration under subsection (b) has been issued with respect to such countermeasure.
Where did this term "countermeasure" originate? It is under the USA Patriot Act of 2001 which was over 500 pages long and introduced the very next day after the 9/11 Twin Towers terrorist act. This is why the Medical Freedom Amendment includes the term “countermeasure”.
We now know the COVID-19 shots were not vaccinations, they were "countermeasures". The USA government approved the multitude of experimental injections as military anti-terrorist “countermeasures” in the form of technological computerized formulas of a modified RNA spike in a sea of chemicals foreign to our bodies, actually a genetically modified organism (GMO), under authority of the USA Patriot Act of 2001, and the PREP Act of 2005 to function as a military response with immunity from liability.
The USA Patriot Act of 2001 was not conceived, hopefully, to expose the entire population to the tyranny of government over our medical freedom to allow an international corporate pharmaceutical monopoly give siege on the treasury of the United States and an attack by experimentation upon United States citizens. Or was this act conceived as a weapon against we the citizens? This would be a criminal act.
Technically, the "vaccinations” are “countermeasures,” that is one word. The results have been devastating as direct evidence from the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) government reporting system demonstrates at the end of this article. A wolf in sheep's clothing. So why can't "countermeasure" be "emergency use authorization"? OOOps! It in fact is!
The court ruled wrong. No "egregious" act should be enforced by any court anywhere. The court by its ruling has unanimously enforced dictatorship and destroyed freedom for this young person, and in so doing, did so for everyone. It also dissolved state's rights over medical freedom.
The State Court ruling is now a precedent that other courts will now consider a valid decision. Will this case be appealed? What would the United States Supreme Court rule? Will the court look at our inalienable rights under the Constitution as it is intended, or will it give government absolute rule over our medical freedom because of possible future health problems? Will reason rule out? Can we trust our government to uphold our medical freedom without enacting the Medical Freedom Amendment?
What if the court had ruled for the boy, that his body autonomy was absolute and violated and the State had power to protect him? This would set a new precedent for courts to ponder especially since Congress decided to give away state power. The case would have been appealed. The State Court could argue and recognize that their state law used the words "emergency use authorization" in a broad appropriate sense. State's have power over medical rights regardless of Federal legislation.
At the time of the North Carolina's legislative act the term of "countermeasure" was highly unknown. "Emergency use authorization" (EUA) are words used by the media with specific application never saying the term "countermeasure". An "emergency use authorization" may have different terminology when used for the same purpose. Since "countermeasure" was introduced as a new word to denote an EUA, it is a fabrication and such fabrications can be done over and over again. In the future it may use the words "urgentnecessity" or "whatever".
The point is that when Congress enacted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and the FDA used it as a medical, military "countermeasure", it required that there were no other alternatives available, and a national biological, chemical, nuclear or radiation attack was taking place. It certainly was not for a "pandemic" situation where the suspected viral agent is mutating faster than science is able to cope.
Are we in vaudeville watching magicians or just simply on the street being fleeced? Or perhaps we are seeing our legislators naked behavior of insouciance.
This is where malfeasance came in to play, denying alternative therapies that later were shown effective and denied by the FDA and NIH. It was profit time for the pharmaceutical industry. All kinds of illegal actions took place regarding civil rights.
"Emergency order authorization" is not unlike the word "vehicle". A vehicle can be a brand, such as Ford or Toyota. Or it could be a form, such as a truck, car, tractor, or a bus. It is still a vehicle. When the legislation was enacted, awareness of this new term was lacking, but the intent of an EUA is broad and the term "countermeasure" is a substitute term for "emergency use authorization". It is only "bait and switch" trickery ignored by the court and destroying a state law that protects a small facet of medical freedom.
For the Medical Freedom Amendment to have its full intention and power to protect medical freedom it would need to be amended every time a new "bait and switch" term was conceived by government to fool its citizens. The MFA has already added "countermeasure" to its litany of "rule, regulation, executive and emergency" powers to protect medical rights and freedom and body autonomy. Is it enough to squarely deny "bait and switch"? Or is there some new more powerful wording that can be used? This is a work in progress to outwit charlatans.
"Countermeasure", through trickery of terminology, allowed medical experimentation fast tracked as a military weapon against the illusive terrorists virus that utilized a limited medical arsenal of the Pharmaceutical International Corporations under the Flexner Report influence that ensures allopathic monopoly and forbade any other more effective therapeutic solutions.
The Medical Freedom Amendment is a national call for public participation to build a wall of defense for our most human and intimate freedom. We are in a state of crisis approaching a perfect storm that will produce apocalyptic results. We require leadership that will endorse the amendment in its full stature and renew the commitment to medical freedom and body autonomy.
Here is the Medical Freedom Amendment:
"All people have the Right to secure their Health in the manner they choose. Congress, the President, State Legislatures and Executives, Governmental Agencies or Departments shall make no law, rule, regulation, countermeasure, executive, or emergency order that impedes the Individual's rights to informed consent nor right to medical choice nor freedom of medical choice.
Nor shall the President, Congress, State Legislatures and Executives, Governmental Agencies or Departments make any law, rule, regulation, countermeasure, executive, or emergency order that impedes the Individual's right to medical privacy and freedom without individual and specific judicial warrant supported by Oath and affirmation of necessary cause to protect Society from Harm describing the Individual's condition and danger it presents."
The Medical Freedom Amendment videos are on YouTube and the MFA blog March 2024 at MedicalFreedomAmendment.org in several languages.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-h2K-8HUvU
Please also join the National Health Federation as it fights for medical and health freedom on the many different fronts of invasion. Scott Tips, President of the National Health Federation, in the earliest days of the pandemic authored an article published in Health Freedom News that exposed the truth of the pandemic. See the Spring 2020 issue, Vol 38, No. 1, stating in essence that “the latest Coronavirus attack is a cover for restricting our health freedoms.” Never Has So Little Done So Much Harm To So Many. https://thenhf.com/never-has-so-little-done-so-much-harm-to-so-many/
-Michael LeVesque-
Never Has So Little Done So Much Harm to So Many April 4, 2020 33 Comments NEWS RELEASE Never Has So Little Done So Much Harm to So Many The Latest Coronavirus Attack Is A Cover for Restricting Our Health Freedoms By Scott C. Tips, NHF President © 2020 Scott C. Tips 4 April 2020 Updated 1 May 2020 ...
