Category Archives: Liberty & Freedom Room

Legal: Restaurant re opening against PA Gov orders found NOT GUILTY

Family Restaurant Hit With Thousands In Fines For Reopening Against Governor’s Orders – Found Not Guilty

“The mask mandate, the plexiglass, the social distancing, all of those things that the governor and [Secretary of Health Rachel] Levine were implementing are not an enforceable citation,” Mangano tells the Caller. “In other words, they can’t legally enforce that. This says that any fine that you get from the state is legally non-enforceable.”

Mangano’s advice for other businesses facing fines from the state for reopening prematurely or not fully following state guidelines is to “stand up and plead not guilty.”

Read more…

THE LAW OF FACEMASKS (from a NY Attorney who won her case)

LEGAL BASIS FOR MASK MANDATES IN NEW YORK clean-1(extracted from a winning lawsuit on Face masks from a New York Attorney)

Excerpt: Based on Gov. Cuomo’s executive order 202.17, as amended and extended through Executive Order No. 202.34

The executive order requires individuals over 2 to wear a mask in public, when not able to socially distance, and it only applies to those “able to medically tolerate a face-covering.”  In addition, the executive order must be applied in a manner consistent with the American with  Disabilities Act (ADA) and applicable law. Therefore, it cannot be applied in a manner that discriminates against an individual with a medical disability, i.e. it cannot be used to mandate an individual to wear a face covering, if he/she cannot medically tolerate a face covering.

Wearing a face covering is not a testing standard, therefore no one has the right to request any medical information from an individual explaining his/her medical conditions that preclude her from wearing a mask. THE LAW OF FACE MASKS

 “…essential business operators and enforcement authorities are prohibited from requesting or requiring medical or other documentation from an individual who declines to wear a face covering due to a medical or other health condition that prevents such usage.”

VLA Comment: Print out, carry and bring a copy to your community business and claim the right not to wear a mas. 


Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 31 (1905) SCOTUS: FORCED VACCINATION

What do Pennsylvania’s Unconstitutional Lockdown Orders,
Jacobson v. Massachusetts and our SB277 Case have in common?

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 31 (1905) is a case which has ruled public health police powers over the past 100 years. However, while this case has been used to justify state governments making laws in times of emergency regarding vaccines, with little regard for civil liberties, AVFCA has long argued that the details of this case, do not warrant such and that times have evolved.

At the time the Revised Laws of that Commonwealth, c. 75, § 137, stated that “the board of health of a city or town if, in its opinion, it is necessary for the public health or safety shall require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants thereof and shall provide them with the means of free vaccination. Whoever, being over twenty-one years of age and not under guardianship, refuses or neglects to comply with such requirement shall forfeit five dollars.” The Jacobson line of cases articulated that (a) a self-contained township; (b) could require an individual to be vaccinated against one highly contagious, airborne disease; (c) or pay a fine; (d) during a proven-to-be- serious outbreak of the same disease; (e) before the era of widespread travel made such mandates less meaningful. Jacobson was also decided decades before the Supreme Court articulated our modern constitutional construct for handling bodily autonomy cases.

The city of Cambridge, MA, put this law into effect, among adults, for the smallpox vaccine. Jacobson refused to get vaccinated, and refused to pay the $5 fine. Jacobson ultimately lost the case and his appeal, but in turn was not forced to be vaccinated. He was just forced to pay the $5 fine. However, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, has been used in numerous cases to enforce broad police powers by public health departments and cities across the nation.

In 2016, A Voice for Choice brought forward a lawsuit, Love v California,to argue that removing the Personal Belief Exemption from school vaccination requirements was unconstitutional in three ways: Bodily Autonomy, Parent Rights and Education is a fundamental right, each of which had been upheld by the Supreme Court individually. Specifically, AVFC argued that the court must adhere to strict scrutiny when deciding the merits of the case. We knew the other side would use Jacobson v. Massachusetts, to argue their case, so we preempted that by arguing that the courts and the world has evolved over the past 100 years, and that strict scrutiny had to be applied. While the judges in our case did not agree with this argument, last month Judge, William Stickman IV, from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, issued an opinion [Read Opinion Here] declaring the Pennsylvania Shelter In Place and Lockdown Executive Orders unconstitutional, specifically discussing how Courts have evolved over the past 100 years since the Jacobson case to be more vigilant in the protection of civil liberties and the need to apply strict scrutiny to the protection of civil liberties. While this opinion is not published and from a lower court, so will not be able to be cited, it gives hope that other judges will follow suit and apply current day constitutional jurisprudence when deciding on cases deliberating on civil liberties and public health and vaccines.

For those not wanting to read the 66 Pennsylvania page opinion, here are some key excerpts regarding the standard of review it would apply to the case:

“Jacobson was decided over a century ago. Since that time, there has been substantial development of federal constitutional law in the area of civil liberties. As a general matter, this development has seen a jurisprudential shift whereby federal courts have given greater deference to considerations of individual liberties, as weighted against the exercise of state police powers. That century of development has seen the creation of tiered levels of scrutiny for constitutional claims. They did not exist when Jacobson was decided. While Jacobson has been cited by some modern courts as ongoing support for a broad, hands-off deference to state authorities in matters of health and safety, other courts and commentators have questioned whether it remains instructive in light of the intervening jurisprudential developments.” Page 13

“Over the last century, federal courts have developed a regimen of tiered scrutiny of examining most constitutional issues-rational basis scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. The appropriate standard depends on the nature of the claim and, specifically, the nature of the right allegedly infringed.” Page 11

“As the Supreme Court has observed “[t]he Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency.” Home Building & Loan Ass’n. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S.398, 425 (1934).” Page 29

“The [Stay at Home] orders are such an inversion of the usual American experience that the Court believes that no less than the highest scrutiny should be used….” Page 47

“The Court declares, therefore, that the stay-at-home components of Defendant’s’ orders were and are unconstitutional. Board population-wide lockdowns are such a dramatic inversion of the concept of liberty in a free society as to be nearly presumptively unconstitutional unless the government can truly demonstrate that they burden no more liberty than is reasonably necessary to achieve an important government end. The draconian nature of a lockdown may render this a high bar, indeed.” Page 48

While this opinion does not overrule Jacobson v Massachusetts, it gives hope that more judges will understand the necessity of applying strict scrutiny to cases where civil liberties are infringed by public health orders, so that cases like A Voice for Choice’s SB277 case would have had a fair chance.

If you found this information helpful and appreciate the work A Voice for Choice Advocacy is doing, please support us by making a donation today.

Airlines Test ‘Proof-of-Immunity’ – Covid Passports “GLOBAL COMMON PASS”

Airlines Test ‘Proof-of-Immunity’

At least two airlines are testing CommonPass, a new technology designed to let passengers prove they’ve tested negative for COVID-19 before they fly.

The groups behind CommonPass — Common Project Foundation and the World Economic Forum — say the technology has the potential to create a universal digital platform for COVID-19 testing that, if adopted across all governments, could hasten the reopening of international borders.

As it stands now, each government determines its own rules and procedures for quarantines and border entry. That’s unacceptable, according to the World Economic Forum’s head of mobility, Christoph Wolff. In a statement, Wolff said: “Individual national responses will not be sufficient to address this global crisis.” READ MORE…

VLA COMMENT: How can a world government establish dominion over the planet?  They tried with TRADE and the World Trade Organization homogenizing and lowering standards.  They tried by assigning each country a specialized product that only they can make so all other nations MUST trade with that nation.  Each country was told to outsource everything UNTIL DONALD TRUMP came on the scene and brought back manufacturing & businesses to the USA so that we could be independent of this strategy to create an un-elected world governance.  Now what else is considered “an in common world resource” that needs to be monitored and controlled by a Global government?

A world wide pandemic (plandemic), creating a global common passport that controls the flow of all populations; a digital finance system; a technocratic world mandating vaccines – nanotech digital finance and social tracking devices – one giant step towards TRANSHUMANISM, Post Humanity.