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
