Analysis of New York Supreme Court Ruling on Government Workers Ordered to Return to Work, un-vaccinated

Share to the world...

They won, but for the wrong reasons.  A troubling trend occurring in almost all court rulings regarding vaccination.  The core reason being that there is a severe lack of medical freedom laws, hence we need Medical Freedom Act.

Initially this ruling may be seen as a victory but it contains some significant dangerous elements.

  • Courts do not affirm individual medical freedom.  They side with the government arguing the government has a duty to protect the people.  There are no protections in the case that the government is wrong (COVID vaccines, Swine Flu vaccine of 1978, etc.)
  • Courts still fundamentally believe that vaccination is the best way to fight viruses.
  • Government sees the medical argument as the most important and as the only argument of significance.  They are not considering:
    • Your rights as a human being to absolutely, without compromise, control everything that goes into your body.
    • Your religious right to accept or reject anything that goes into your body.
    • Your right as a citizen of the USA, where the government has no authority to penetrate your body  (the freedom & liberty argument)
  • By this logic, the courts will one day fully condone forced vaccinations.
  • The core problem is that our current laws do not recognize natural law and our human rights, which allow us to choose what goes into our bodies.  Since these are not laws in our country, the court cannot rule on laws that do not exist.  Therefore, the courts are left to only rule on issues of authority and jurisdiction, which are fragile.  Eventually the laws will be changed to support vaccinations and the courts will become full instruments of tyranny.



Below is a play by play explanation of each page of the ruling.

Nothing is better than natural immunity.  Natural immunity has dozens of layers of defenses, not all of which are understood.  Vaccine induced immunity ONLY invokes antibodies.  It does not cause T-Cell immunity, which gives you long term ability to re-mobilize the other layers of immune system defense.  That means that vaccinations are generally poor immunity.  Also, this is one of the first times that a court recognizes natural immunity, which is a very good thing.  BUT…  it is still a utilitarian argument where violating your rights as a human being is acceptable provided there is a good enough reason by the government.  Natural Immunity is still a short circuit argument that still re-enforces the government argument that you must be forced to do something “for the greater good”.  What if you didn’t have natural immunity?  Then they can do whatever is in the interest of their agenda?


This is an allusion to the Newsom v. Tandon case in California where the governor exempted some people (e.g. strip clubs) but not others (e.g. churches).  The court is still okay with vaccination mandates provided it applies (tyrannically) equally to everyone.  How is this any better than Communist China, Nazi Germany, or Soviet Russia?



“Rational basis” is a dangerous standard that completely violates your freedoms and liberties.  Simply put, the courts do not acknowledge freedom and liberty and this is why Medical Freedom Act is needed to re-iterate that you do have these liberties, and that courts must recognize these.  Anyone can create a clever ‘rational basis’ to justify anything.  The Nazis used a public health scare to demonize Jewish people, to separate them from the rest of German society.  Big-pharma and government colluded on all COVID matters (e.g. learn about Event 201 : ) to manufacture a “rational basis” to take away all your rights.


This highlights the flaw of using a “rational basis” to justify an agenda, while disrespecting religious convictions or freedom/liberty.  All PCR testing is flawed because it cannot be used to diagnose infection.  It can only tell you if there is a molecule of something in you.  As the inventor (Kary Mullis) of the PCR test said, you can use PCR to find Anthrax in anyone.  The PhD lawyer that uncovered the Volkswagon diesel emissions scam in Germany also uncovered that PCR testing was used to create a public narrative of COVID “cases”.  This test could be used to manipulate the number of “cases” merely by changing the levels of amplification in the PCR to detect COVID, whether this is a culturable infection or not.  Having a few bits of SARS-CoV-2 is not enough to make you or others sick.  Even Fauci said that above a certain number of cycles of amplification, the PCR test yields too many false positives.  Refer to the article PCR Testing.  Bottom line is that clever people can always manufacture a clever (scientific) argument to create a “rational basis” for violating your bodily rights and your religious rights.


This again shows that the courts generally support vaccination.  They also decide arbitrarily that some percentage of people vaccinated is enough.  Again, another use of a fraudulent “rational basis” argument (utilitarian argument).

The separation of powers doctrine highlights the most 2nd most important point of this exercise, that is, to understand that the laws are not on our side.  The laws empower the government under the premise of a “rational basis”, which can always be cleverly spun to suit a political agenda (e.g. de-population).  Courts are bound to rule on the law as it is written, not on what they want as people.  Federal and state laws are horribly deficient and they do not respect your natural rights and your religious rights.  That is why we need Medical Freedom Act.



Nuremberg Code (which is not law) specifically warns against performing a medical procedure “in the interest of public health”.   This again goes back to cleverly manufacturing a great sounding scientific “rational basis”.



The “not having the authority” argument, while temporarily successful, is not a good reason to claim victory on not vaccinating.  The pro-vaccine lobby will one day find a clever rhetoric supported by existing law.  And, they are constantly trying to pass new laws that take away your medical freedoms.  One day, all medical tyranny will be legal unless we write laws to defend medical freedom.

They also cite another fragile argument:  vaccines were never originally required for employment.  This is basically saying that requiring vaccination is okay as long as it was there during your initial employment.  Airlines do require vaccinations for employment.  This argument can be rendered moot overnight when airlines only hire vaccinated people.



We again see from the courts the mentality that violating natural law is acceptable provided it’s temporary.  If this is true, then what stops a number of ’emergencies’ from being used to perpetually violating natural law and Constitutional law?  9/11 was used to suspend your 4th Amendment constitutional protects even to this day.  In fact, it’s worse today than when they started.  Now the government spies on anyone they want.  Recall how the FBI’s lawyers wrote a false FISA warrant to spy on candidate Trump during his election bid.  That lawyer was found guilty of filing a fraudulent FISA warrant but he never went to jail.  He barely got a slap on the wrist.  This means: (a) the cost of getting caught is acceptable because the reward is a significant furtherance of the political agenda,  (b) it’s okay to break the Constitution as long as there’s a good enough reason,  (c)  this was uncovered only because of the public fame of President Trump; for the average citizen, they have no recourse against government abuse since FISA is a secret court.



This highlights that labor unions have an obligation to fight for and represent their members interests, even if they ideologically disagree with it.  In the case of ALPA, they completely absolved themselves of engagement and thus failed to represent a large portion of their pilot group.  And, ALPA did take a side.  It took the side of imposing a medical procedure on you because it did not support medical choice.  The Medical Freedom movement is the only neutral position to have because it gives the choice fully to the individual.  The alternatives all involve some form of tyranny.  Also, ALPA made the false argument that if it’s not in the contract, then they have no responsibility over it.  Yet, ALPA engages in political movements such as Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (DIE) and alcohol treatment programs.  These are partisan programs because everyone has a fair choice not to engage in either, and they do not apply to all members.



They now explicitly say that vaccines are okay as long as as its for everyone and not just the majority.  The court is not considering the religious or freedom/liberty arguments at all.



Again they re-iterate that some arbitrary number constitutes enough vaccinated people.  They are saying that the “rational basis” argument is more important than the religious, freedom/liberty arguments, which are natural law.



This court case is not really a victory.  One day they will manufacture a more bullet proof fraudulent, but convincing argument that will pass the blunt analytical ability of the court.  The vaccine lobby is already reforming science with false arguments such as “scientific consensus”, where something becomes truth simply if most people agree.  Yet, this is precisely contrary to science, where science supports what is reproducible by anyone through experimentation.  At one point, almost everyone thought the world was flat, except for a few people.  At one point, the scientific establishment opposed Albert Einstein saying he was crazy, yet today we know otherwise.  If the courts already reject the more important legal principles of freedom/liberty and religious conviction, then have they created case law that only requires a better “rational argument” in the future in order to force vaccinate everyone legally?

This is why the only real solution is to change laws at the federal and state levels to constrain government and corporations.  This is why Medical Freedom Act needs to be passed everywhere.

Share to the world...