Article by Scott Armstrong | Rebunked News | @RebunkedNews
Clip from The Daily Wrap-up with Ryan Cristián:
Maui/East Palestine Updates, Shocking Lack Of Evidence On New COVID Jabs & WHO Criminal Organization (9/15/2023)
For more, please visit TheLastAmericanVagabond.com
Follow TLAV on Twitter: @TLAVagabond
Pushing Back
In a place like Los Angeles, California, it comes as no surprise that the local government has taken it upon themselves to go above and beyond what is required to exercise their control and dominance over their employees.
This hearing took place on September 14, 2023 in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Health Freedom Defense Fund et al. v. Alberto Carvalho. According to the California Globe, this lawsuit was brought about by Leslie Manookian, Founder of the Health Freedom Defence Fund, against Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent Alberto Carvalho in response to the LAUSD firing over 1,000 employees for choosing to not accept the experimental mRNA injections into their lives.
As you can see in the video above, things didn’t go so well for the LAUSD. Their tyrannical and overreaching policies were taken to task and they were left with barely a leg to stand on.
It is shocking to see the arguments from the side still advocating for compulsory injections as a condition of employment. Everything from making teachers and staff get shots despite working from home, to the claim that they will keep the policy in place until there is evidence that the shots have ZERO efficacy, the absurdity was palpable.
Acknowledgement is in order for the Judges in this case who seem to understand the issue at hand and were not afraid to push back on the pro-mandate side of the argument. The Presiding Judges in this case are the Hon. Michael Daly Hawkins (appointed by Fmr. President Bill Clinton) and the Hon. Daniel Paul Collins (appointed by Fmr. President Donald Trump).
So much truth comes out in this exchange. It was truly remarkable and extremely refreshing to see people in judicial authority taking such a bold stance against these mandates. Kudos to these Judges for speaking so authoritatively to someone who has obviously been so used to having the cloak of protection wrapped around them that the vaccine-cult has enjoyed for years now. It’s time to wake up, people. To hear a Judge say plainly to the pro-mandate crowd that he is “shocked” by the fact that this policy is still in place is a huge step in the right direction.
The Jacobson Case
You heard reference to the “Jacobson Case” in the video, which is a legal precedent that the pro-mandate community turns to often to make their point that, in some cases, people should be denied their right for medical choice and be forced, by the state, to undergo vaccination against their will.
The Jacobson case in question is the 1905 case Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 in which a pastor in Cambridge, Massachusetts refused to undergo a compulsory smallpox vaccination. The penalty for not undergoing this forced injection was the institution of a $5 fine for all people over the age of 21 who refused the vaccine.
Jacobson claimed that he and his son should be exempt from the vaccine because they had both suffered an adverse reaction from a previous vaccine, and were fearful for their health. Due to his refusal, Jacobson was issued a $5 fine.
He sued the state of Massachusetts and was embroiled in a legal battle that reached its way to the Supreme Court.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled against Jacobson. However, the point that many fail to recognize, which often gets lost in the debate, was that Jacobson was never actually forced to receive the injection, he was simply forced to pay the $5 fine and was held in custody until that fine was paid.
The legal precedent set insinuates that governments have the right to impose these mandates and that they can impose consequences for those who do not comply, however, it doesn’t go so far as to say that the government has the right to forcibly inject people against their will.
Here is the case summary from Justia.com:
PRIMARY HOLDING
A state may enact a compulsory vaccination law, since the legislature has the discretion to decide whether vaccination is the best way to prevent smallpox and protect public health. The legislature may exempt children from the law without violating the equal protection rights of adults if the law applies equally among adults.
FACTS
A Massachusetts law provided that the board of health of a city or town may require and enforce vaccination and revaccination of its inhabitants, while providing them with a way to get free vaccinations. The state imposed a $5 fine for people over 21 who violated this law, although it provided an exception for children with a doctor's certificate stating that they are not fit for vaccination. The city of Cambridge adopted a regulation requiring all of its inhabitants who were not vaccinated against smallpox in the last five years to be vaccinated or revaccinated. (This was based on the increasing presence of smallpox in the city.) A certain physician was authorized to enforce the vaccination policy. The plaintiff in this case was an individual over 21 who refused to comply with the vaccination requirement and then faced a criminal complaint. He was found guilty and fined, and the court ordered him held in custody until the fine was paid.
In relation to Health Freedom Defense Fund et al. v. Alberto Carvalho, the California Globe article summarized its connection to Jacobson v. Massachusetts:
While LAUSD and others have used the aforementioned US Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) Jacobson v. Massachusetts case from 1905 to justify vaccine mandates, Jacobson has been wildly misconstrued to justify authoritarian overreach. In Jacobson, SCOTUS held that in extreme circumstances, such as a smallpox outbreak with a death rate of 30–40%, a jurisdiction might mandate a safe and effective vaccine or allow a fine to be paid by those who declined the vaccine. Jacobson did not say that the state could plunge a needle into the arm of someone who objected to being vaccinated or could condition employment on submitting to a vaccine.
In this case, the Judges argue that since the COVID injection has been proven to have no affect on transmission, the Jacobson case does not even apply. The Jacobson Case infers that the smallpox vaccine actually helps stop the spread of smallpox (which is up for debate), but let’s assume for a moment that it does. Even within that point of view, the COVID injection does not qualify for the same legal standing that the smallpox vaccine does.
The bottom line is this: while it seems that jurisdictions can choose to impose such measures and mandates, they cannot force anyone to actually submit to these medical interventions.
As we go forward with the agenda, it is crucial for you to realize that you always have a choice. There may be short-term consequences for your choice, as these people who wield this power enjoy enacting harsh penalties for non-compliance, but never lose sight of the fact that you ALWAYS have a choice.
A New Precedent
It is time to set a new precedent. The world is ready for a new paradigm. The irony is that the new paradigm that the world needs so badly is actually the one in which our country was founded. The government should only exist to protect the rights that have been endowed to each one of us by our Creator. The government loses its authority the moment that it infringes on those rights, and the most apparent overstep that a government can demonstrate is when it physically violates the sovereignty of our own bodies.
Katy Grimes from the California Globe concludes her reporting on the Health Freedom Defense Fund et al. v. Alberto Carvalho case as follows:
The Ninth Circuit has the power to not only right these wrongs but to advance the constitutionally protected cause of freedom by affirming the appeal and sending the case back to district court for a proper adjudication of the facts.
Over the decades, when constitutional amendments have been challenged, the Supreme Court has made clear that no right is held more sacred than that of bodily autonomy. It is time to put Jacobson in its place in history by clarifying and cementing recent case law in service to all Americans.
Not only are these brave Judges standing up to the pro-mandate side of the argument, but this case may go a long way to create a new legal precedent, that the tyrannical measures we have seen over the last few years become a thing of the past and a new standard is instantiated in the form of legal protection that genuinely seeks to protect the people, as it should.
Note to the Readers:
Thank you for your ongoing support of The Last American Vagabond. TLAV is a Value-For-Value experience. We want to invite you to subscribe to our Substack for as little as $5/month to join the discussion, comment on posts, join the TLAV Roundtable Discussions and feel good about supporting independent media that you value. Upgrade to the Founding Member Level for the opportunity to have a monthly Q&A with Ryan as well. Thank you to all of you who already support TLAV in all the various ways that you do with your time, talent and treasure.
Judges Push Back HARD On Tyrannical Injection Mandates