Part 1 Link to Video on Rumble
This is Part 2 of the discussion on the quarantine FOIA:
Part 2 Link to Video on Rumble
First, a request to readers - if you have a good collection of resources, articles, research explaining the inability to diagnose disease by PCR methods, please post in comments. This will be very helpful for an ongoing project.
My appreciation for the Children’s Health Defense colleagues, especially CHD’s fellow Risa Evans who has obtained a partial response on this FOIA. She is trying to get more information, and I will report if/when anything comes out. What has been produced so far is quite shocking, indeed.
I wrote previously about the lawsuit filed (and lost/not appealed) by the AGs of 15 states v HHS’s definitions of pandemic here. In response to that lawsuit, the HHS stated that they already have the authority to declare pandemics whenever they wish to, and do not need the WHO Pandemic Treaty or IHR Amendments to exercise this power. The judge also ruled that the states did not have sovereignty on this matter. In their response to the legal complaint by the AGs the HHS stated that they already exercised this power in early 2020 by detaining people on false pretenses at several military bases, and killing 10 of them and labeling it “covid”. Of course, they didn’t word it like that, they said something about “asymptomatic”, “pre-symptomatic”, and “reasonable belief” that of course was based on secret PCR-enabled knowledge about an alleged pandemic virus that only CDC had and nobody could independently verify at the time, nor since, really.
After reading this case, I reached out to Risa Evans from CHD to try to get the paperwork from the Grand Princess quarantine orders that were issued by HHS for its passengers.
The paperwork that was sent back did not include the original quarantine orders that were supposed to be issued on March 8, but instead included several quarantine extensions, changes and some references to the original orders.
this question was raised by Dr. Jane, so, let’s look up the legal definition of an “order”:
Meaning of “Order” in Law
In the legal context, an order is a direction or mandate issued by a judge or court that requires a person, group, or entity to perform a specific action or refrain from taking a particular action. Orders can be issued during legal proceedings, and they are often used to resolve disputes, protect individuals, or enforce court judgments.
What about quarantine orders, and why is CDC issuing them? They are not the judicial branch after all. According to the National Coalition of the Civil Rights to Counsel, under normal circumstances, quarantine orders are technically “voluntary”, at least at the beginning.
The procedure begins, in most states, with an order by the health authority that the person or group of persons can consent to or “voluntarily” comply with. Because isolation and quarantine are severely restrictive, court proceedings authorizing such acts are often the next mandatory step, whether there is consent or not. However, many statutes will allow the health authority to file a petition only when the person is non-compliant with the initial agency order and deemed a public threat. While hearings are required in some states, other states only require a hearing if requested by the person.
Well, that’s under normal circumstances. But we are not living in the normality, aren’t we:
Besides the specific quarantine statutes, states typically have the power to quarantine or isolate people and areas through general police powers or through emergency powers (which come into effect during a declared public health or state emergency) to control areas and the movement of people, and this may be referred to as the power to control the egress and ingress of individuals into a specific area, detention, control over persons and property, etc., rather than as “quarantine” or “isolation”. Often the statement of authority is broad, but also time-limited unless renewed.
We can laugh together at the “time-limited unless renewed” part - we are living in the permanent People’s Banana Republic of the Public Health Emergency!
Specifically, when public health emergency is renewed 11 times and expected to be renewed in perpetuity for the next several centuries…. alrighty… I don’t believe these legal eagles at the National Coalition have thought of just how clever the government can be when they need to…
Notably, when states issue a “stay at home” or “shelter in place” order, it often is issued pursuant to this police/emergency power and not the specific quarantine laws (not even if the state has an “area quarantine” procedure). Where the general police or emergency power is used, the quarantine-specific procedures set out (including the right to counsel) are unlikely to apply.
Got it! The government, federal or state, can throw you into a facility and murder you any time, calling it Disease X, Y, Z, avian flu, etc. That’s exactly how those CDC orders were written and dispensed for the Grand Princess passengers. You can read this for yourself.
The passengers were taken off the ship that traveled from California to California, by CDC agents who asserted interstate authority based on world ending health emergency of a deadly virus for which the only epidemiologic evidence and the only test (based on unvalidated undiagnostic PCR) existed in CDC’s hands. The only evidence of a “virus” was a computer model in the Genbank database.
Based on this information that nobody could independently verify, the CDC imprisoned these people at several Air Force bases:
People who were not ill, without any symptoms were designated “pre-communicable” and a “threat” based on some handwaving “rules” that CDC uses and nobody can question or review were kept in detention, until CDC would decide if they can be released. They could appeal - to CDC of course, the same people who put them there! 10 people died as the result of this detention.
Ask the brave freedom warriors Governor DeSantis or AG Paxton or the 49 Republican politicians who signed “Stop the WHO” letter to explain this one to you… Maybe they are interested in signing “Stop the CDC!” letter?
wrote about this 2 years ago:
The American regulatory implementation tools to execute the WHO’s governance of the United States have been in place domestically since 2017, when the US Department of Health and Human Services adopted implementing regulations laying out surveillance, quarantine and other “emergency” public health-related powers that would kick in automatically and silently when and if the WHO Director-General declared a “public health emergency of international concern.” (PHEIC).
The mechanism for that automatic, silent power transfer lies in 42 CFR 70 — US Domestic Interstate Quarantine Regulations.
Through those regulations, the appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services has been legally empowered to seize and unilaterally exercise the governing authority formerly held by the President, Congress and federal courts.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in that scenario, acts on behalf of World Health Organization technocrats, not on behalf of American citizens, and not bound by the US Constitution.
WHO Director-General Tedros declared a PHEIC on Jan. 30, 2020.
The declaration is still in effect, despite the temporary purported “rollbacks” in various smaller jurisdictions such as states, counties, municipalities and school districts.
In other words, America is already under stealth occupation by the World Health Organization.
Here is some legal history on the law and amendments that enables this atrocity right here at home:
HHS cites to Congress passing and amending 42 USC 264 (the quarantine statute) as denying courts judicial review authority, because Congress put the quarantine power into sole HHS Secretary control (delegated to CDC director) and (HHS argues) it would be an agency rewrite of federal statutes to "grant" federal courts "legal jurisdiction that they do not already possess:"
"To the extent, however, that the commenter contends that HHS/CDC should follow legal procedures other than those set forth through the Federal quarantine statute at 42 U.S.C. 264, we disagree. HHS/CDC notes that as a Federal agency it lacks the ability to rewrite Federal statutes or grant Federal courts with legal jurisdiction that they do not already possess. HHS/CDC also rejects as impractical and as insufficient to protect public health, the notion that isolation or quarantine should only occur based upon the consent of the subject individual"
In the 2002 amendments in PL 107-188, Congress eliminated a National Advisory Health Council and Surgeon General role, put it all in HHS Secretary hands (with "consulation" with Surgeon General), and added the "qualifying stage" "precommunicable" , and "if the disease would be likely to cause a public health emergency if transmitted to other individuals." See p. 35/105 PDF of 2002 law, attached.
It's part of the Fourth Amendment suspension, under "non law enforcement" activities of government.
The expanded power was transferred to CDC director with the Jan. 19, 2017 Final Rule on Communicable disease control.
If you keyword search on 70.14 and 71.37 in the attached 2017 notice, you'll find some citations about it.
Also "judicial review" and "Fourth Amendment”:
"Courts have held, however, that not all types of searches and seizures necessarily require probable cause and a warrant. Searches and seizures conducted with the consent of an authorized person and those searches and seizures that are conducted to avert an imminent threat to health or safety do not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment even when conducted without probable cause and a warrant."
It's meant to look like a form of probable cause, warrant, due process and judicial review, without being substantive, but instead being fake, like everything else.
After being taken into detention, a detainee can file a habeus corpus petition for judicial review under 28 USC 2241, like any other criminal, and can also request an administrative hearing, not for constitutional or due process issues, only for medical and scientific issues.
They tried to put these rules in place in 2005 and ended up withdrawing them in 2016, only to push them through in Jan. 2017.
In the 2005 version, there was going to be a 42 CFR 70.20, providing administrative procedures for "hearings." That section wasn't included in the 2017 version that's currently in force.
Also interesting, re the FOIA that Risa filed. It may be that there aren't individual quarantine orders for the 3,000+ cruise passengers, but they were just covered by a notice posted in a public place, addressing them in the aggregate.
42 CFR 70.18 of the 2005 proposed rule, which ended up as 42 CFR 70.16(m) in the 2017 version:
§ 70.18 Service of quarantine order.
(a) A copy of the quarantine order shall be personally served on the person or group of persons at the time that quarantine commences or as soon thereafter as the Director determines that the circumstances reasonably permit.
(b) In circumstances where the Director deems it necessary, the quarantine order may be posted or published in a conspicuous location, except that the Director may omit the names and/or identities of persons and take other measures respecting the privacy of persons.
In the Jan. 19, 2017 Final Rule, HHS reported on these and other comments raising Constitutional concerns, emphasizing the “non-law enforcement,” “border search,” “special need, and “emergency civil commitment” character of apprehension and detention procedures carried out under public health pretexts.
HHS respondents connected quarantine authority to warrantless drug and alcohol testing conducted without probable cause in employment contexts, as upheld by the Supreme Court in two 1989 cases.
Jan. 19, 2017 Final Rule, Control of Communicable Diseases, at pp. 6899-6900:
Several commenters questioned whether quarantine and isolation may be carried out consistent with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. One commenter also suggested that implementation of public health prevention measures at airports would lead to ‘‘unreasonable searches and seizures’’ under the Fourth Amendment.
HHS/CDC disagrees with these assertions. The Fourth Amendment protects the rights of persons to be free in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable government searches and seizures.
HHS/CDC notes that at ports of entry, routine apprehensions and examinations related to quarantine and isolation may fall under the border-search doctrine, which provides that, in general, searches conducted by CBP officers at the border are not subject to the requirements of first establishing probable cause or obtaining a warrant. See United States v. Roberts, 274 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir. 2001); see also United States v. Bravo, 295 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that only in circumstances involving extended detentions or intrusive medical examinations have courts required that border searches be premised upon reasonable suspicion).
Similarly, apprehensions and examination of persons traveling interstate under this rule are authorized under the special-needs doctrine articulated by the Supreme Court in Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) because of the ‘‘special need’’ in preventing communicable disease spread.
Furthermore, to the extent that ‘‘probable cause,’’ rather than ‘‘special needs,’’ would be the applicable Fourth Amendment standard, HHS/CDC contends that meeting the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 264 satisfies this standard. See Villanova v. Abrams, 972 F.2d 792, 795 (7th Cir.1992) (noting that probable cause for emergency civil commitment exists where "there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person seized is subject to the governing legal standard.")...
HHS/CDC received a comment citing Missouri v. McNeely, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police must generally obtain a warrant before subjecting a drunken-driving suspect to a blood test, and that the natural metabolism of blood alcohol does not establish a per se exigency that would justify a blood draw without consent.
In response, HHS/CDC notes that courts have recognized that while the requirements for probable cause and a warrant generally apply in a criminal context, these standards do not apply when the government is conducting a non-law enforcement related activity. See Nat’l Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 665 (1989) (reaffirming the general principle that a government search may be conducted without probable cause and a warrant when there is a special governmental need, beyond the normal need for law enforcement).
HHS/CDC reiterates that the special-needs doctrine articulated by the Supreme Court in Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n., 489 U.S. 602 (1989) provides the appropriate legal standard under the Fourth Amendment for apprehensions and detentions under this final rule...
It is mine and Katherine’s conclusion that under PHE, CDC Director becomes the judge, jury and executioner. There is no due process and nowhere to appeal to but to the same MD, PhD goons who stuck you into the military prison.
Dear freedom movement people, please, come back from Geneva, and let’s start drafting those “Stop the CDC” campaigns asap! My personal advice, do not answer the questions on where you have been, or about your contacts with birds, earthworms, bats and other critters when crossing international borders.
Art for today: Still life with Peonies and Delphinium, 16x20 in, oil on panel. Earlier in May, I travelled to the Netherlands and visited several outstanding art museums. Dutch masters inspired me to make some floral still lives.
Grand Princess Quarantine Orders - Discussion with Dr. Jane Ruby