http://exopolitics.blogs.com/breaking_news/2014/08/ebola-triggers-george-bushs-bizarre-pandemic-laws.html
A bill in Massachusetts is dissected below, and virtually nothing consonant with health was found. Investigate for yourself.
SOME of the bill:
(d) All state and local agencies of the Commonwealth engaged in responding to a public health emergency declared pursuant to section 2A or a state of emergency declared under chapter 639 of the acts of 1950 shall consult and cooperate in:
(1)
the exercise of their powers over routes of transportation and over materials and facilities including but not limited to communication devices, carriers, public utilities, fuels, food, clothing, and shelter;
[Why should any public health situation entail taking control over a phone or computer? Communication between people is itself healthy and if someone is sick and isolated, their contact by phone or computer with others would be comfort and reassurance and necessary information all around. What possible justification is there for these totalitarian measures? These have no relation to public health but a strong relationship to how a concentration camp environment was set up for New Orleans under Katrina. Why are these necessities of life listed and what business does a public health authority have in taking any control whatever over them? So, people's food can be confiscated? Their clothing? Their home? The Bill of Rights guarantees under the law that Americans are to be secure in their homes. It makes no exception for criteria-less "danger to public health" which through broad and unlimited powers itself becomes a danger to the preservation of essential civil liberties within a civil, democratic society. If one is seeking a totalitarian control over any population, however, this provides a list of excellent means. It is also a means of seizing everything of value in the entire country and dovetails with Obama's executive order #13603 which states that the President alone has the authority to take over all resources in the nation (labor, food, industry, etc.) as long as it is done “to promote the national defense” — a phrase so vague that it could mean practically anything. -
http://asheepnomore.net/2014/05/05/flashback-obamas-plan-seize-control-economy-lives/ ]
SECTION 12. Section 94A of said chapter 111, as so appearing, is hereby amended by striking out subsection (d) and inserting in place thereof the following subsection:-
[What has been struck out? When Code is not specified like this, it is worrisome since it makes opaque for most people and even legislators what is going on. The concern is that something more specific and more democratic may have been removed and it will be important to know what is referred to each time Code is mentioned.]
(d) Law enforcement authorities, upon order of the commissioner or his agent or at the request of a local public health authority pursuant to such order, shall assist emergency medical technicians or other appropriate medical personnel in
the involuntary transportation of such person to the tuberculosis treatment center.
[What tuberculosis center? A FEMA camp? This sort of removal has been proven useless for influenza and certainly would be for Ebola
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ops/hsc-scen-3_flu-pandemic-quarantine.htm and would certainly be dangerous for anyone who is already sick. For anyone in their home, away from others, moving them simply exposes the most number of people possible. If "quarantine centers" are mentioned,, where are they? Who runs them? How will people be "involunarily transported"? If your child were sick, and being kept away from others in your home, would you be fine if the government took them away forcibly to some public center, exposing them to others, allowing them to receive nothing from you, putting them through travel, when they needed most to be kept quiet and rest and not be traumatized by law enforcement and medical personnel taking them away against they will? For what logical or even possible health benefit would this be?]
No law enforcement authority or medical personnel shall be held criminally or civilly liable as a result of an act or omission carried out in good faith in reliance on said order.
[That blanket immunity for harm done under a situation in which any reasonable person would anticipate severe harm could and most likely would be done, goes along with the removal of all liability for drug companies for now highly suspect vaccines. So, in the two most serious violations of rights and where people are most afraid of actually dying, all immunity has been removed.]
SECTION 13. Said chapter 111, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by striking out section 95 and inserting in place thereof the following section:-
[This Code must especially be checked since the bill includes it and doesn't strike it out.]
Section 95. (a) Whenever the commissioner, or a local public health authority within its jurisdiction, determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that a disease or condition dangerous to the public health exists or may exist or that there is
an immediate risk of an outbreak of such a disease or condition, and that certain measures are necessary to decrease or eliminate the risk to public health, the commissioner or local public health authority may issu[No criteria.] and in such case it shall be followed by a written order as soon as reasonably possible. The written order shall specify the reasons for it, and may include, but is not limited to
[No criteria for a circumstances. No criteria for "reasonable cause to believe a disease or condition dangerous to public health exists." No criteria for a disease or condition "may exist." What constitutes "an immediate risk of an such an disease or condition"? And yet nothing is more easily quantifiable than vast numbers of people who are ill and whether they statistically far surpass normal numbers for illness - none of which has been true for the swine flu but the CDC create fake numbers in 2009 to give that impression.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/10/24/cbs-reveals-that-swine-flu-cases-seriously-overestimated.aspx#! And they continue to lie.
http://www.anh-usa.org/cdc-caught-red-handed-exaggerating-flu-cases-and-deaths/ This trick with numbers was played with polio
http://foodfreedomgroup.com/2012/04/17/the-polio-game/ which caused an epidemic of cancer since.
http://vran.org/about-vaccines/specific-vaccines/polio-vaccine/sv-40-contamination-of-polio-virus-vaccines/ How many many "Ebola" deaths are not from Ebola at all?
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/05/18/how-they-would-stage-a-bioterror-event/ Authorities given such limitless discretion to declare a public health threat could maintain the state under such medical martial law, endlessly, breaching civil rights with impunity, taking people from their homes with no real medical cause to house them in detention centers, and breaking them financially for resisting being invaded medically or treated or decontaminated without criteria even for being ill and by means and substances that could harm or kill them, over which they have no control, and with full immunity for authorities..
And by what authority? The same authority making the order? Not by a court? Where is due process? Is this irrelevant addition of a written order supposed to mask the absence of due process? In these few words
"but are not limited to" rest the clarity of this being a politically totalitarian bill. it is a Medical Patriot Act - in that it claims to be about public health but is actually a threat to public health and democracy itself (one which the health of all citizens is truly based), just as the Patriot Act claimed to be about patriotism, but is an actual threat to the country. Both are assaults on the Constitution.
"... but not limited to" opens doors to every abuse authorities could possibly perpetrate, and this, in a section which is already an extreme violation of citizens' rights to be secure in their homes, including actual destruction of property and even of the home itself if it is defined in the order. So what additional horrors could " ... but not limited to" possibly include?
The authority is granted the right to order anything, and in their own good time, with provide the order in writing?]
(1) requiring the owner or occupier of premises to permit entry into and investigation of the premises;
[No due process. No warrant. Unconstitutional.]
(2) requiring the owner or occupier of premises to close the premises or a specific part of the premises, and allowing reopening of the premises when the danger has ended;
[No due process. No warrant. Unconstitutional.]
(3) requiring the placarding of premises to give notice of an order requiring the closing of the premises;
[No due process.]
(4) requiring the cleaning or disinfection, or both, of the premises or the thing specified in the order;
[No due process. Unconstitutional.]
(5) requiring the destruction of the matter or thing specified in the order.
[There is no reason to destroy anything. The longest time that any references show influenza viruses "might" remain on hard surfaces is 48 hours. Hard surfaces are easily cleaned so it is medically absurd to destroy things which even uncleaned and undisinfected will viruses exist. it is such gross distance between civil rights (to say nothing of common sense and common decency) and government claiming authority to act at will, including destroying people's personal things for no cause and yet with impunity that exposes the (unlimited) totalitarianism and inherent cruelty of this bill. it is certainly grossly unconstitutional, but its slyness in " ... not limited to" makes one realize it does not exclude about seizing of food or valuables or the property itself. Its disturbing " ... not limited to" includes anything and one is reminded that Obama has not removed extended detention or torture ... ]
If a person does not comply with the order within the time specified in the order, but the non-compliance does not pose a serious danger to public health, the commissioner or the local public health authority may apply to a judge of the superior court for an order requiring the person to comply with the order within the time specified in the order of the court; and to take whatever other action the court considers appropriate in the circumstances to protect the public health. The law enforcement authorities of the city or town where the person is present shall enforce the court order.
["Whatever other action" the court "considers appropriate" has what protection for citizens from judicial abuse? Where are the specifics of punishment or penalty which could be inflicted on anyone? What kind of law leaves off the particulars? There are no criteria for any piece of that or any defining of "the circumstances" that allegedly threaten health. And then it becomes clear with the section below on "fine" that the judge ordering people taken away would make 50% on fines imposed when sending the person away, beginning to fine at $1000 a day, and a judge makes nothing if he does not order the person "detained" or "imprisoned." The local "law enforcement" also directly profits from taking each and every person away.]
Any person who knowingly violates an order, as to which non-compliance poses a serious danger to public health as determined by the commissioner or the local public health authority,
shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 30 days or a fine of not more than one thousand dollars per day that the violation continues, or both. if the commissioner or local public health authority was acting in good faith under color of official authority.
[Not only are there no standards but there are these astounding totalitarian words: It shall not be a defense to a prosecution for this offense that the commissioner or the local public health authority erroneously determined that non-compliance would pose a serious danger to public health, This is similar to Antonin Scalia asserting that innocence is no defense against being executed.]
A person who knowingly violates any other order issued under this subsection may be subject to a civil fine of not more than one thousand dollars per day that the violation continues.
["Any other order." Notice there is an ADDITIONAL unbearable amount for each offense so for any normal person this is a not a simple penalty but the threat of total ruin in fact (which is exactly how the "food safety" bill is written for farmers). When faced with a weaponized vaccine or being taken to "quarantine center" on trains that include shackles and guillotines mounted at the head of them and with rail tracks running into gas chambers outside of Portland, San Diego, San Antonio, and in Indiana (and likely many more places), is there a sane option? Because if you refuse the vaccines, you will be taken away and charged $1000 a day for a month (refuse any other order and that's another $1000 a day), and it is reasonable to assume that you would be forced to take the vaccines once imprisoned, regardless.]
Any fine collected for any violation of this section shall be
credited fifty percent to the courts and fifty percent to the health care safety net trust fund.
[They have here set up a financial incentive for either party to proceed against citizens, especially at a time when state and government funds are low everywhere. And who established and who runs and who profits by "the health care safety net trust fund? Who are they, in the background, making 50% of every fine places on any American person resisting potentially being murdered? Who is behind this? That is $500 a day to any judge that sends a person away, $1000 a day if the person resists going. How many people can a judge order taken away and fine in a day? Or
how much money can a judge make from Americans resisting a system unquestionably intended to kill them? The work of Dr. Cordero applies here. US Judiciary goes Rogue: 99.82% complaints vs. Judges are dismissed.
http://dai.ly/x2362o
The commissioner or the local public health authority
may recover expenses incurred in enforcing the order from the person to whom the order was directed, by action in the superior court.
[In addition to being fined beyond a capacity to pay and/or imprisoned for defending their constitutional rights, the person must also pay the costs incurred by those who deprived of their constitutional rights. Law enforcement is incentivized to take people away. The amount the person must pay is not mentioned. (It is hard not to wonder if homes will be plundered as payment to those "enforcing" this horrific and potentially murderous regulations. Is this why Obama has been heavily militarizing DHS and local police forces across the country?
How does anyone in seeing judges and law enforcement profiting from massive violations of people's rights and then more profit if they stand up for themselves, not wonder at what interests are behind such a bill, and sense something extremely dark and controlling being pushed under the pretext of "public health"? This bill is stark fascism.]
(b) Furthermore, when the commissioner or a local public health authority within its jurisdiction determines that either or both of the following measures are necessary to prevent a serious danger to the public health the commissioner or local public health authority may exercise the following authority:
[By what criteria? Didn't we used to have criteria in law that kept public officials from being able to do whenever they wished to anyone and for any reason?]
(1) to vaccinate or provide precautionary prophylaxis
[There is no criteria for imposing this at all. No proof of disease in area is needed, no proof of any number of people falling ill, no percentage of deaths that far outrun the normal number of deaths from influenza, etc. And there is no mention of people who are allergic and would die from being vaccinated, or people who are too ill, or women who are pregnant, OR ANY TESTING FOR SAFETY AT ALL.]
to individuals as protection against communicable disease and to prevent the spread of communicable or possibly communicable disease,
["Possibly communicable disease"? They are saying here that they don't even need to show that a disease is communicable.]
provided that any vaccine to be administered must not be such as is reasonably likely to lead to serious harm to the affected individual;
[Who decides that? People know now- based on the admission of the chief of vaccines at Merck, Maurice Hillerman - that ALL vaccines contain multiple cancers and viruses.
The Ebola deaths all began near a US bioweapons lab funded by George Soros who was present a Rockefeller gathering of what they call "the Good Club"
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Swine_Flu/Gates_Vaccines/gates_vaccines.html - a collection of some of the wealthiest people in the world, all seeking to drastically lower world populations. (Ted Turner who was there said "95% reduction of world population to between 225-300 million would be “ideal.”)
Rockefeller, the host, had half interest in IG Farben, the pharmaceutical and chemical giant that backed Hitler and ran the camps and killed millions. That is, the elite who are behind the vaccines are interested in genocide.
The USAMRIID which weaponized anthrax and sent it out to murder people right after 9/111 (the deaths being used to push exactly such laws as this on the states) is involved in creating an Ebola vaccine. The seasonal flu vaccine by Baxter International contained weaponized bird flu
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Swine_Flu/Gates_Vaccines/gates_vaccines.html and was only exposed at the last minute. It could have killed millions. One H1N1 vaccine was due to have
a million times the amount of squalene than the proven to be weaponized anthrax vaccine
http://www.projectdaylily.com/ contained sqalene related to Gulf War Syndrome, and banned in the US. Yet they were proceeding with it and in an "emergency," even a fake one, testing is not required . Dr. Anders Bruun Laursen who saw this, said it appeared "murderous" to him.
http://globalresearch.ca/what-s-the-danger-of-swine-flu-vaccinations/14851 So ordinary people have every reason to believe that vaccines coming from a pharmaceutical industry with a history of weaponizing vaccines with the military - the anthrax vaccine which killed 30,000 service people and maimed many thousands more: the HIV vaccine from Merck which its head vaccine scientist said caused AIDS in the US; the polio vaccine weaponized by the CIA and Tulane University which caused AIDS in Africa and killed millions; and now the Ebola vaccine related to groups involved in the other deadly vaccines and promoted by the WHO which is under the control of David Rockefeller who supported genocide under Hitler - would pose a significant risk of disease and/or death.
But what authority under the control of those who seek genocide, will say the vaccines (from the pharmaceutical industry and military bioweapons labs) are "NOT such as is reasonably likely to lead to serious harm to the affected individual"
Where is there an independent setting in which the public and scientist may not only disagree but bring forward endless data to prove otherwise? (See two PDFs with that evidence, below.)
and
(2) to treat individuals exposed to or infected with disease, provided that treatment must not be such as is reasonably likely to lead to serious harm to the affected individual.
[Based on whose reasoning? When is it the right of the government to decide how to treat anyone? If your child is sick and you are treating them as you believe best, would you want police/public health people breaking into your home to force a treatment - assuming they don't drag your child away - which you do not want or believe would be safe for them?
Millions of people in this country do not use orthodox medical treatments, based knowledge of its proven toxicity and dangers, including death. Do they not have to civil right to be secure in their persons and treat themselves as they believe best? Does it take an extreme totalitarian bill such as this to help the pharmaceutical industry ensure its products and treatment are "taken" by a public rapidly moving away from it in fear already? Did they contribute to it?
It was the pharmaceutical industry, "medical authorities" and the military in 1918-1919 who killed 20-50,000,000 people with vaccines and aspirin, NOT A FLU. Vaccines began it.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/april012011/1918-flu-jh.php Aspirin finished people off.
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/bayer-and-death-1918-and-aspirin/ Natural treatments not promoted by the military and government saved lives.
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/07/10/aspirin-killed-homeopathy-saved/And this very law was pushed by the military connected CDC
http://salem-news.com/articles/may132011/cdc-wrong-bw.php using a lie about 1918-1919, when they know flu did not kill people.
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/vaccines-and-cdc%E2%80%99s-myth-of-a-1918-virus In reality, the pharmaceutical industry which runs the WHO and CDC, caused the largest "accident" to human health in human history, and 27 years later, during WWII, the same industry
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/history_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htmmurdered openly, including with gas, drugs, vaccines, and chemical.
This very law was put in place by Bush is connected to the Nazis who murdered millions, including with vaccines.
http://rense.com/general7/gw.htm So, yes, it is
more than reasonably likely to lead to serious harm. It is extremely likely that any vaccine, drug, chemical or treatment mandated under this law will be hazardous to life, and meant and designed to be.
- "Seventy years ago a similar configuration of oil, pharmaceutical, chemical, military supply and eugenics interests were organized by Wall Street into IG Farben/Standard Oil-Hitler's industrial powerhouse. To grasp the real significance of what GW Bush's cabinet has been brought together to accomplish it is essential to understand the history of IG Farben, its relationship with American corporations and how together they applied modern technology to the task of eugenics or scientific racism.
-
- "According to former US Justice Dept. Nazi War Crimes prosecutor John Loftus -who is today the director of the Florida Holocaust Museum- "The Bush family fortune came from the Third Reich," -Sarasota Herald-Tribune 11/11/2000 http://www.newscoast.com/headlinesstory2.cfm?ID=35115"
-
An individual who is unable or unwilling to submit to vaccination or treatment shall not be required to submit to such procedures but may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111
[Where is that? They do not mention quarantine in a person's home. So where does section 96 of chapter 111 refer to? A detention center? A FEMA camp? It is disturbing that they are not specifying here but only referring to code.]
if his or her refusal poses a serious danger to public health
[by what absent criteria?]
or results in uncertainty
[Now, it seems that "uncertainty" becomes the criteria.]
whether he or she has been exposed to
[Notice they do not say, as they so easily could, "require evidence that the person has been exposed" Not do they refer to "specific signs of illness." So, what defines "exposed"? Who defines it? The media and "unnamed experts"?
that poses a serious danger to public health, as determined by the commissioner,
or a local public health authority operating within its jurisdiction.
[The heart of this is that "serious danger to public health" is undefined entirely, leaving open its declaration at any time authorities may wish and allowing them to subject citizens to warrantless entry, bodily violation by tests, treatments they choose, questioning, exposure to toxic chemicals for decontamination inappropriate even to the issue at hand, crushing penalties - with benefit to authorities - removal to unspecified detention centers, all for insisting on Constitutional guaranteed protections against any of this.]
(c) Furthermore, when the commissioner or a local public health authority within its jurisdiction determines that either or both of the following measures are necessary to prevent a serious danger to the public health, the commissioner or local public health authority may exercise the following authority:
(1) to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated any individual;
There is no way to "decontaminate" a person from Ebola. This is a civil rights outrage based on zero science and disturbingly reminiscent of what the Nazis did to people. Is this intended for use in FEMA camps for lice and other pests associated with being forced into crowded conditions? Is it intended to sell chemicals? is it intended to demean and cow a population? What is this really about?]
provided that decontamination measures must be by the least restrictive means necessary to protect the public health and must be such as are not reasonably likely to lead to serious harm to the affected individual;
[What are they intending to use to "decontaminate" people - chemicals that kills viruses so would be toxic ad dangerous at some level? They would spray these chemicals on someone they "think" might have been exposed to flu but is healthy otherwise or on someone who may even be sick with it? The obvious harm to the immune system from such "decontamination" is obviously the opposite of a public health measure to help anyone stay healthy or to help anyone survive illness.]
and
(2) to perform physical examinations, tests, and specimen collection necessary to diagnose a disease or condition and ascertain whether an individual presents a risk to public health.
This is supposed to be done to a well individual? To every individual? To a sick individual who is in bed trying to get better and is home, away from other people so presenting no risk to anyone? This appears to be forced data collection as part of forced medical experiments like the pharmaceutical industry ran in the concentration camps and has set up now in the US.
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Rule-by-fear-or-rule-by-law-3229509.php In order for this not to be forced medical experiment, people must have the right to not consent. The Nuremberg Code requiring
informed consent was put in place after the Holocaust specifically because of the hideous experiments the pharmaceutical industry ran in the concentration camps, to stop the Nazi pharmaceutical industry from ever conducting forced human experiments again.
Yet this entire law arranges to get around that under the excuse of an emergency for a n infectious disease that may not even by present or may only be "at risk" of being present, with ALL requirements for evidence and criteria for all actions, removed.
The last item on the list applies to forced human experimentation. The Ebola vaccines, or any drugs, chemicals or gases, unless the public is INFORMED what they contain (and in the case of the vaccines that they have weaponized) and all possible side effects, and then consents to them not under duress, must NOT be mandatory for that would instantly create a global human experiment on the entire non-consenting human population and a violation of the Nuremberg Code on a scale even those who wrote it couldn't fathom.
Yet the main thing this law does is lay out the details of extreme duress, literally forcing people to go along with any order forcing anything on them, with threats of imprisonment and fines that would destroy them. And one thing they are "forced" to go along with is testing of them and taking bodily samples. unspecified, but given the Nazi context, and the effort to eliminate all controls put in place by the Nuremberg code, this could taking taking parts of the brain, taking parts of organs, vasts amount of blood, doing virtually anything, with their trying to officialize death from it, in advance - and immunize killers and plunderers, which this law in meant to do.]
If an individual is unable or unwilling to submit to decontamination or procedures necessary for diagnosis, the decontamination or diagnosis procedures may proceed only pursuant to an order of the superior court. During the time necessary to obtain such court order, such individual may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111
[Where do they mean? They are not saying "at home" so one suspects they are referring to some detention center. Removal to detention center, of course, is a threat of such immense proportions that many people will comply out of fear or else it becomes a punishment equal or worse than imprisonment, for refusal to submit to unconstitutional forced bodily searches and chemical exposure of "decontamination" - all for something that doesn't even have to be proven is there or a problem.]
if his or her refusal to submit to decontamination or diagnosis procedures poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health.
[No criteria. And so cover themselves, they've added "uncertainty" - about whether there was exposure at all, whether someone is infected at all, and not just with a disease but with a "condition". What is a "condition"? Can you be infected with one? Exposed to one? What does one even do with a condition? And inl this Alice down the rabbit hole world, ANY exercising of one's constitutional and human right to be secure in one's person leads to imprisonment and the length of time is dependent on the vague "During the time necessary to obtain such court order." There is no stipulation of any time frame so a person could potentially be imprisoned indefinitely.]
The Massachusetts bill is based on the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA), pushed through under Bush/Cheney after the Anthrax killings (which were proven to have been caused by anthrax from the US bioweapons lab at Fort Detrick, Maryland) and substituted for older state laws across the whole country. The older laws did not seize clothing, food, industries, utilities, communication, transportation, fuels, etc.; they allowed for self-quarantine, and did not mandate treatments.
Here is the full text. Download (88.76 KB)
This PDF file can be opened with the free Adobe Reader
For PDFs with evidence of the US weaponizing its vaccines and killing millions, see below.
Download Injunction
http://exopolitics.blogs.com/files/injunction.pdf
Download Evidence for Injunction
http://exopolitics.blogs.com/files/evidence-for-injunction.pdf
"Ebola" Triggers George Bush's Bizarre Pandemic Laws
http://exopolitics.blogs.com/breaking_news/2014/08/ebola-triggers-george-bushs-bizarre-pandemic-laws.html
Comments