The Highwire with Del Bigtree - CENTURY-OLD RULING AFFECTS VAX MANDATES

Episode Date: June 7, 2022

CENTURY-OLD RULING AFFECTS VAX MANDATESBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

I know you've been asked about monkeypox. I've been asked about monkey pox, and I know you're going to cover that later in the show. But one of the things I've been asked about specifically is, are they going to lock us down again for monkey pox? Are they going to force a monkey pox vaccination on us? Right. And, you know, everywhere we look, the COVID-19 restrictions, the pandemic restrictions that we're put in place are getting holes poked in their integrity and in their basic goodness for to do anything positive for society over the last few years. And a big thing has happened now with the vaccination standpoint. point. And this is from the legal front. So this is from the American Bar Association. Now,

just to bring viewers up to speed, this association is over 140 years old. They're part of the law school accreditation process. They're committed to advancing the rule of the law in United States. I mean, this is the premier association when it comes to legal, I guess, wherewithal in the United States. And this is an article they just put out. It's very, very interesting. It's titled, evaluating compulsory COVID-19 vaccination mandates. And it says, here, before we go into the quotes, Judge Harlan was the judge in Jacobson versus Massachusetts. This was a compulsory vaccination in 1905 because of a smallpox vaccination. Jacobson didn't want the vaccination because he had a childhood injury to vaccination previously.

So this is what this association wrote. Judge Harlan noted at the time that although the court supported the ruling of Massachusetts, it says, quote, the court would not be inclined to hold that the statute establishes the absolute right that an adult must be vaccinated if it be apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty that he is not at the time a fit subject for vaccination. So what this Bar Association is doing is going through three points in Jacobson v. Massachusetts that a lot of lawyers have not really decided to argue. And Jacobson versus Massachusetts, why is it important? Just for people that are brand new to this conversation, Jacobson versus Massachusetts, it's a 1905 decision that

looms over every one of these choices that's made. So every time you want to push back and say, I have a religious right to not be vaccinated, or I have a personal right that I should be able to turn down a vaccine, this is my body, my choice, any of those, what you'll hear is, well, not based on the Supreme Court, Jacobson versus Massachusetts. I think for people that are new to really understanding how our laws were,

yes, that's what we call precedent. So if the Supreme Court made a decision all the way back in 1905, when people were living in the sewage of the law, horses running through the streets, you know, didn't have working toilets and things like that in, you know, all over America. And we're comparing that time and what was decided then affects us now in the modern age with cell phones and, you know, what have you, 5G going on. It just seems so antiquated, but that's how our system works. But to get back to it, I just just want to bring people up to speed. 1905, we're talking about. Since 1905, we've been,

you know, dealing with this decision. So, you know, this bar association, is really weighing in on a very old decision by the Supreme Court. But even the judge there, as you just pointed out, said, look, I'm not saying unequivocally across the board that we're saying you should vaccinate everybody. You know, they have to be fit to receive the vaccine. And there's many points to that that you're pointing out here. Okay. Yes. And just to say, this is an antiquated decision, obviously,

but over, just about 254 cases during the pandemic, fighting executive orders, mandates through hospitals, federal worker mansions, mandates have relied on this decision mostly to deny the plaintiffs the right to not have this vaccine, the mandatory vaccine. So, yeah, so the subject must be fit is the first argument that the American Bar Association article is saying, this is a caveat that no one's talking about, you know, what if you're, what if, I mean, we can go a lot of directions with this, but what if you're a college student, you've had two shots, you have myocarditis and you're looking down a barrel of a third booster in order to go finish your college, that could be argued

as something. Now, let's go on to the second point that American Bar Association makes in this article. It says the COVID-19 vaccine mandate mandates are in no way similar to the fact pattern in Jacobson when evaluating either the rationale for the mandates based on vaccine efficacy or the severity and proportionality of the punishment for failure to comply with Massachusetts mandate in 1905. So again, we know now that these vaccine efficacy is is abysmal. We'll get into this later in the segment here with a JAMA article. But back then, they saw that the vaccine, the smallpox vaccine could eradicate. They have those words in there.

It can eradicate smallpox. It's not what we're dealing with with COVID-19 here. This thing is not stopping disease transmission whatsoever. And the punishment, by the way, was a $5 fine, which is about $157 or so in today's money. So I know a lot of people that would probably pay that to not have to lose their job. Move merrily on your way, exactly. Right, right.

And now the third point it makes here, and the third and final point, it says a footnote in Jacobson, which the court relied upon in its historical analysis, about the efficacy of vaccines included data that separated out those who had naturally been exposed to smallpox as its own category of the population. So here we have natural immunity in an analysis by a court so long ago. And that's another aspect, again, that we're not seeing really played out in the legal aspects and the legal arguments. Look, it didn't work. All of these people that were employed, all of these doctors on the front line being forced to get the vaccination because Joe Biden decided that it was his call to make

with an emergency use authorized vaccine that had not been properly safety tested. How many of those doctors? I mean, they were treating people from day one. Most of them had already caught it and gotten through it, had natural immunity, and it just didn't weigh in as being, you know, part of the decision making.

But here we now find out through this Bar Association article that the original ruling in 1905 said, hey, don't put the natural, immune to that list. They get to, that's a different deal on the side. They don't need the vaccine. And so I think it's brilliant to see, you know, such a powerful legal organization stepping up here. And think about what that means, Jeffrey. And people, we read it, we think, ah, blah, blah, associations, whatever. But remember, every lawyer in the country that is going to find themselves on one side of these cases or another, this is the journal that they read. This is their

bar association. And so even the writers, they know who, you know who. they're writing to. They're saying to every lawyer in America, yes, read this. This is the fact of the matter. So, you know, really powerful. Yeah, you can almost see it. It just ripples out into the legal consciousness of American law. And we'll see what happens with that. But, you know, there is a lawyer, a prominent American lawyer, Alan Dershowitz. And during the early part of the pandemic, actually two years ago to the month in May 2020, he came out with this article, he was in an interview and he said some things. And this is the article that reported on it.

Alan Dershowitz says the state has every right to plunge a needle into your arm and forcibly vaccinated citizens. And while I remember at that point, you had to have him on and you had a conversation that looked like this for anybody that didn't see it, check it out. Can you name a case where forcibly injecting somebody was upheld in a court? Of course, yes, the Jacobson versus Massachusetts. It took place in Cambridge, Massachusetts. where I spent most of my life at Harvard,

and Cambridge had an outbreak of smallpox in the first decade of the 20th century, in a group of dissenters led by a man named Jacobson, took the case to the United States Supreme Court, and in a decision by Justice Harlan, the first Justice Harlan, joined by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and others, said that the state did have the authority and the power.

as far as I know, I know no other case in the federal courts or in leading state courts that's denied that power. So I think right now the judicial view is fairly unanimous, but you raise some interesting points that I think good lawyers could really bring to the attention of the authorities, and you might get a decision that is more nuanced than calibrated. My understanding of Jacobson is Jacobson actually just ruled he didn't want to pay. the $5 fine. And the Supreme Court enforced that he had to pay the $5 fine. He was not forced to be vaccinated. I asked you, is there precedent for forcibly vaccinated? Are you equating paying a fine with, as you said, taking some of the hospital and forcing a vaccine into them? Something that I think could be considered battery or wrongful imprisonment. Do those equate?

Does paying a fine equate to actual physical retaining and puncturing your skin with a needle? Do you think that those things actually line up? Of course they don't, but the Jacobson case would have permitted compulsory vaccination. I mean, that was such a fascinating and brilliant. By the way, this is the beauty of our website. If you have not seen that debate, I think it's about 30 minutes long. One of the high points in my life, obviously, you know, who am I to think that I'm going to debate one of the great constitutional lawyers of all times? But he made such dramatic statements, as you said in that headline,

saying, I believe the state could plunge a needle into your arm forcibly. And he didn't just make that statement. He said, and I would love to be the lawyer that the government hires to defend that position. And so I had reached out to him and said, look, you made a pretty strong statement, and you said you want to be a part of it. Will you come on my show and let me debate you on the merits of that? In the end, you heard a little bit of that. It was pretty stunning.

After about 30 minutes, I laid a bunch of different thoughts on them. But the big one there being, you know, Jacobson only made them pay a $5 fine. I had asked, you know, Alan Dershowitz, so have you ever seen a case where they did defend plunging a needle into someone's arm? He said, Jacobson, it just wasn't true. Jacobson had to pay a fine. That is not the same thing as dragging someone in a hospital and violating their body. And he conceded that amongst many other things.

If you want to see how that debate went, you just have to go to our, you know, our amazing website. You just search them sure Dershowitz will get to you there or something. And this is one of the goals. Let me just stop down for a second, Jeffrey, just as I interrupt. For those of you watching this show, this is one of the things that we do that no one else does in news. We have a legal team that fights for the rights of humanity, especially here in the United States of America. So we are looking for that perfect case. We are constantly trying and getting involved in funding different cases across this country

because we need to have a case. The way this system works, there has to be a new case. rises all the way up to the Supreme Court and then ends up being decided by the Supreme Court that will overcome this antiquated dying old case that has been looming over us for over a century. And so when you're funding the informed consent action network as one of our donors, that allows me to say to our legal team, you know what? We're pretty well funded this month. And so what happens that the wrong lawyer takes one of these cases up to the Supreme Court? and they lose there.

Then we have a loser, and then we're stuck with that precedence. So it's so important that when these great cases come along, that I get to send the greatest lawyer of our time, Aaron Siri, into the battle. You make that possible when you become a recurring donor. Great, you know, large donations at one time are great, but when you become a recurring donor, we get to see, we know exactly how much funding we'll have

over the next couple years during the course of this case. So just go to our website, decide to be a recurring donor. And, you know, we're asking for $22 for $22. But obviously not everybody. That might be a little bit too much, even though I know you're spending that on your cable bill and a bunch of other things that are lying to you every day. But whatever you can spare, whether it's a cup of coffee, $5 a month,

it really makes a difference if you are, have done very well in life. And you really want to be a part of letting your money fuel the blood of the, of the rebellion of truth, the battle for truth, then this is the way you get to do that. Sorry to take us on such a sidebar, but this shows how important right now the legal side of the work we do at the informed consent action network is. It's truly going to decide our fate in the years to come. It's super important. And the other beauty of that was the open debate that was allowed, minus any type of government censor that you and Mr. Dershowitz had. And if I believe correctly you both came to some common ground at the end of that where before perhaps he would have

you know he would have been at an extreme view kind of painted by the corporate media that these people are just anti-vaccers and no one can ever debate or question vaccines because their science is settled so that's the beauty of this open debate