TTAV




 

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

The Legal Authority to Send Ebola Patients to FEMA Camps


The following is by Dave Hodges of the Common Sense Show, from October 11, 2104. It demonstrates his lack of knowledge regarding both our 'government' and our 'legal' system.

Ebola Patients and Exposed Persons to be Sent to Death Camps According to HHS Documents

Excerpts:

The Legal Authority to Send Ebola Patients to FEMA Camps

Before one can “legally” transport Ebola patients to “death camps” and await the inevitable, the public must be reassured that the rule of law is being followed.

When Ebola strikes, the changes in the handling of Ebola patients have already been planned for through a series of legal actions, most of them are Executive Orders. For example, the Executive Order, entitled Revised List of Quarantinable Communicable Diseases, amends Executive Order 13295, passed by George W. Bush in April 2003, which allows for the, “apprehension, detention, or conditional release of individuals”, and Ebola is specifically mentioned. Obama’s executive order, entitled, Revised List of Quarantinable Communicable Diseases, amends Bush’s Executive Order 13295, which allows for the, “apprehension, detention, or conditional release of individuals  to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of suspected communicable diseases.”

Even though President Bush specifically mentioned Ebola as an illness which would permit the authorities to utilize forced quarantines, Obama takes this portion of the Executive Order to a whole new level. Obama has granted his administration the authority to detain, in any manner deemed necessary, any person who demonstrates any degree of respiratory distress. This means people with noninfectious asthma could be detained.

When the forced transport of Ebola patients begins to occur, relatively healthy people will be joining them in this death parade march. The operational details will be covered later in this article.


Once you understand the Bond v UNITED STATES case, you will see the issue in a whole new - and more accurate - way.

Hodges said a mouthful in his very first statement:
"Before one can “legally” transport Ebola patients to “death camps” and await the inevitable, the public must be reassured that the rule of law is being followed."

If you think of placing people into custody for the purpose of inoculation and/or quarantine as crime scene number one, you will understand that is where we need to deny our consent. Once in the "custody" of the corporation's employees, it will be presumed that you have acquiesced to their authority. It doesn't matter if you are requested or ordered to comply, the response should be the same - denial of consent - in writing.

Remember, today what is calling itself our 'government' is nothing more than a private corporate franchise network pretending to be a sovereign government. All they can do is write rules for non-human legal "persons" (your all caps name). And many of us believe that our best defense (at the moment) is to expose their fraud and NOT CONSENT.

4.  Enforcement of corporate statutes, rules, regulations or Executive Orders by law enforcement officers - without full disclosure and written consent - are unlawful and these officers can be held personally liable for their actions.

I can think of no better time to challenge their authority than this fake ebola pandemic. Maybe, it is a blessing in disguise. Maybe the BAR and everyone else will finally wake up to the truth.

Why is the Bar Guild so hell-bent on keeping everything on the private side? Because the public side invokes constitutional issues and nothing they do can withstand a constitutional challenge. The organic Constitution still exists in its original glory and authority and is buried in the US Printing Office. All amendments since 1871 do not exist. Why? It was the "corporate mission statement" for the District of Columbia that was written in 1871 to resemble the organic Constitution. It is that corporate mission statement that has been amended since 1871 and chopped up as of late.

That DC corporation - and all of its appendages - are bound by the Law of Contracts (see Bond v UNITED STATES). So, we must not consent or agree to contract with them. They do not represent us or our best interests and haven't for a very very long time.

Best to all,

AL



No comments: