DOJ declares vaccine mandates legal

Green Dot

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2021
Messages
318
Location
1627430295018.png
 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
Eugenic agenda is now clear as day, it’s beyond surveillance and control at this point, it’s a full blown drive toward depopulation.
 

DrJ

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
721
Just say it is against your religion and then proceed to sue the flock out of them for discrimination.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
View attachment 25881

So what?

The "DOJ Office of Legal Council" is not a judge, nor part of the judiciary. It's part of the executive branch.

They can have an opinion on the matter, but it isn't binding, any more than, say, Homer Simpson's.
 

PxD

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
402
So what?

The "DOJ Office of Legal Council" is not a judge, nor part of the judiciary. It's part of the executive branch.

They can have an opinion on the matter, but it isn't binding, any more than, say, Homer Simpson's.
Until or if a Federal judge rules on this, anything else that anyone else in government says is irrelevant.
 
OP
Green Dot

Green Dot

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2021
Messages
318
Location
So what?

The "DOJ Office of Legal Council" is not a judge, nor part of the judiciary. It's part of the executive branch.

They can have an opinion on the matter, but it isn't binding, any more than, say, Homer Simpson's.
We know. Once all the "essential" workers and the military is vaxxed, civilians are next.
 
P

Peatness

Guest
So what?

The "DOJ Office of Legal Council" is not a judge, nor part of the judiciary. It's part of the executive branch.

They can have an opinion on the matter, but it isn't binding, any more than, say, Homer Simpson's.
I agree with this. Until they prove that they can enforce this no one should be cowed into getting shot!

 

PolishSun

Member
Joined
May 25, 2020
Messages
447
The only way is to win some time until bad things about "vaccines" would come out or some other emergency or crisis would appear, so they would forget "vaccines"
 

Mito

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
2,554
So what?

The "DOJ Office of Legal Council" is not a judge, nor part of the judiciary. It's part of the executive branch.
That’s true but many government agencies and corporations have acted on this “legal advise“. If a judge ever declares it illegal, it will be after the majority comply with imposed mandates.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
That’s true but many government agencies and corporations have acted on this “legal advise“. If a judge ever declares it illegal, it will be after the majority comply with imposed mandates.

Some corporations and government agencies attempted this months ago, before this "legal advise." People have the right to "contract unlimited," and agree to things they aren't forced or compelled to do all the time.
 

Lejeboca

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2017
Messages
1,039
Some corporations and government agencies attempted this months ago, before this "legal advise." People have the right to "contract unlimited," and agree to things they aren't forced or compelled to do all the time.

Many unlimited contracts have a clause that the parties agree to abide by internal policies. The sneakiness is that these policies change very frequently. For example, in 2019, when one signs such a contract, there is no talking of vaccines or masks, now one party sticks a "mask policy" in, for example. *However*. (1) Such policies cannot trump (statutory) laws and would be unconscionable as such and (2) Need agreement (negotiating) of both contracting parties.
Otherwise, a party can stick something like "chop your toes" into a policy and you would have to abide to keep your employment. Of course, if two parties agree that one endures harm (e.g., being a bull fighter) then, the contract is valid.
 

Lejeboca

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2017
Messages
1,039
So what?

The "DOJ Office of Legal Council" is not a judge, nor part of the judiciary. It's part of the executive branch.

They can have an opinion on the matter, but it isn't binding, any more than, say, Homer Simpson's.
+1 .
DOJ is plying for TV-viewers, making frivolous inferences from the EUA (Title 21 US Code 360bbb-c)
 

Grapelander

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
1,297
Location
Sonoma County
Per Karen Kingston (see 17:00 min mark):
Just because someone says something, especially in this current administration, does not make it true.
The DOJ can say we recommend this mandate, or we mandate these vaccines...
I read the memo; it is a 'memo' written by Dawn Johnson she's the acting Assistant Attorney General to the President saying that under Title Code 2021-564 private companies and local companies can mandate the vaccines under Emergency Use Authorization. Her interpretation is reckless and it has no merit.
So it is just an opinion and it is not enforceable. Period.
She has not mentioned Title Code 21 in her memo; which is what this falls under because they violate four other sections under drug and vaccine safety.
They have Section 502 which is false and misleading labelling because this thing is not a vaccine, there's no benefit to your health when you get injected; the only thing it can do is poison, harm and kill.
It doesn't tell you that it contains graphene oxide. Adulterated drugs and devices also violate section 501 if it contains a toxin.
It also violates Section 312.23 under initial new drug applications so if you go through an IND you have to prove safety in animals before you move on to humans. They signed a letter of intent for pregnant rats. Under the IND if there is shedding, if there is risk to people of child bearing age then you need to stop the trial. We know there is shedding, we know there is risk to child bearing age and the FDA even talks about it in their Protein Therapy and Oncolytical Virus Treatment that shedding is a real thing. You need to do animal studies first then you need to do phase 1 human studies, and if there is shedding you need to come up with control measures so that you don't vax the un-injected - which is going on right now.
They also violate section 312.42 which is clinical holds and request for modification that says any of these things I have said and there is at least 3 dozen; then you need to stop the trial.

 
P

Peatness

Guest
Per Karen Kingston (see 17:00 min mark):
Just because someone says something, especially in this current administration, does not make it true.
The DOJ can say we recommend this mandate, or we mandate these vaccines...
I read the memo; it is a 'memo' written by Dawn Johnson she's the acting Assistant Attorney General to the President saying that under Title Code 2021-564 private companies and local companies can mandate the vaccines under Emergency Use Authorization. Her interpretation is reckless and it has no merit.
So it is just an opinion and it is not enforceable. Period.
She has not mentioned Title Code 21 in her memo; which is what this falls under because they violate four other sections under drug and vaccine safety.
They have Section 502 which is false and misleading labelling because this thing is not a vaccine, there's no benefit to your health when you get injected; the only thing it can do is poison, harm and kill.
It doesn't tell you that it contains graphene oxide. Adulterated drugs and devices also violate section 501 if it contains a toxin.
It also violates Section 312.23 under initial new drug applications so if you go through an IND you have to prove safety in animals before you move on to humans. They signed a letter of intent for pregnant rats. Under the IND if there is shedding, if there is risk to people of child bearing age then you need to stop the trial. We know there is shedding, we know there is risk to child bearing age and the FDA even talks about it in their Protein Therapy and Oncolytical Virus Treatment that shedding is a real thing. You need to do animal studies first then you need to do phase 1 human studies, and if there is shedding you need to come up with control measures so that you don't vax the un-injected - which is going on right now.
They also violate section 312.42 which is clinical holds and request for modification that says any of these things I have said and there is at least 3 dozen; then you need to stop the trial.


Glad someone else picked up this interview. Thanks for transcript. I thought she had lots of useful information. Hope it stands up to scrutiny
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom