PETER ST ONGE: So the Deep state is effectively passing 98.8% of our laws numbering roughly 11 per day

Last week the Supreme Court gutted the imperial bureaucracy that has usurped the will of the people and left us with a rabid mutant federal government no sane voter ever wanted.

Now begins the fun part -- hacking back at tens of thousands of rules that stunt the economy and… pic.twitter.com/OdZuOv4GPP

— Peter St Onge, Ph.D. (@profstonge) July 3, 2024

The Supreme Court just gutted the administrative state, the unelected deep-staters who have usurped the will of the people and left us with a rabid, mutant federal government no sane voter ever wanted.  Last Friday, the Supreme Court released a ruling Loper Bright vs. Raimondo that dethroned the so-called Chevron deference, a legal doctrine that for 40 years effectively forced judges to assume that government bureaucrats have whatever authority they want.  Since the 1970s, Chevron had become a keystone of the Administrative State cited by 70 subsequent Supreme Court decisions and over 17,000 rulings in lower courts.  Now it is gone.  The ruling itself involves a fishing boat that was forced to pay for regulator ride-alongs at a cost of $700 per day which would have bankrupted them.  So they sued, saying the agency did not have Congressional Authority; they just made up the rule.  The court agreed.  The larger issue is whether Congress makes law or do unelected bureaucrats make law?  This ruling says Congress makes laws, as it says in the Constitution.  The New York Times was positively horrified, mourning that the ruling "transfers power from the Executive branch to Congress."  In other words, it transfers powers from the unelected bureaucrats to the elected politicians, who actually have to answer to voters.  This matters because Federal bureaucrats currently spawn roughly 4,000 rules per year, which all have the force of law, compared to 50 actual substantive laws passed by Congress every year.  So the Deep state is effectively passing 98.8% of our laws numbering roughly 11 per day.  This is partly because the vast majority of rules are unpopular and would never be able to pass Congress.  So try running for election banning gas stoves or raising the gasoline tax, and see how far you get.  It's much easier to pass the buck to some bureaucratic Rando who cannot get fired.  The Loper ruling will lead to hundreds or possibly thousands of challenges to rules that were made without Congressional authority which is roughly all of the rules.  These range from environmental mandates and diversity to OSHA and the SEC, and they include the more totalitarian parts of the deep state.  For example, the COVID era tyranny never could have happened without Chevron deference.  No 6 ft distancing, no bans on going to church, no vax mandates, leaving your loved ones to die alone, none of those would ever have been passed by Congress.  All are now illegal.  Same for self-defense and the Second Amendment, where Rogue bureaucrats have banned bump stocks or directed banks to effectively close down gun shops again without Congressional authority.  And, of course, the border where Congress has famously passed nothing the entire open borders, human trafficking industrial complex is made of rules the administrative state made up.  In short, Loper reins in the rogue bureaucrats, who are currently running our country into the ground.  We've already seen fruits.  Two weeks ago, the Supremes struck the ban on bump stocks, and last week saw a separate case where the Supremes ruled the SEC cannot use its own in-house tribunal to impose fines which seems obvious given courts are supposed to be impartial but that was Chevron deference for you.  As for the economy, reining in the totalitarian administrative state means less crony regulation, less more jobs, more growth hiring, incomes, and less inflation.  It will take time for Loper to clear out the overgrowth clogging our economy, but the healing has begun. 

MANOOKIAN: we're in the middle of World War 2, and Congress passes something called the Public Health Services Act, 1944?

What does SCOTUS overturning the Chevron deference mean for medical freedom cases? https://t.co/hDsSjrAuJ7

— Leslie Manookian (@LeslieManookian) July 1, 2024

Leslie Manookian.   

"[T]his Chevron case is huge...because it means that the courts will no longer defer to the administrative agencies or to these federal agencies...they actually have to be held accountable and prove in a court of law that the rules that they are issuing are based on science..." Writer, filmmaker, former Wall St. business executive, and President of the Health Freedom Defense Fund (@theHFDF) Leslie Manookian (@LeslieManookian) describes for Brandon Bushong of TrialSite News (@TrialsiteN) why the Supreme Court overturning the long-standing Chevron doctrine is such a big (positive!) development.

Transcription of the clip: "It's a huge, huge case. So there's been a Supreme Court case called Chevron versus Natural Resources Defense Council that's been in place since 1984, and this has been controlling law across the entire country. What it says is that if so when we sued CDC, the court, when we sued CDC over its mask mandate, and defeated it, the court is required to give deference to the agency if there's some question about, interpretation of the law. Okay? And that's not what happened in our case because we argued that the CDC had overstepped its lawful, authority under the Administrative Procedure Act. "But, basically, there was a case called Loper Bright Enterprises in front of the Supreme Court. And what happened was EPA ordered this...fishery group, Loper Bright Enterprises, to take on board an observer and pay for him or her, someone who would ensure and this is a small group, small business, ensure that they are not overfishing, and they had to pay for it. And so, basically, it was this massive overstepping of authority. So what Chevron doctrine says is that if there's an issue before the courts involving a federal agency, then the courts should defer to the expertise in terms of interpreting...the intentions of Congress, but also the expertise of the agency itself. And, therefore, its rules should be upheld. "Well, the Supreme Court right now does not seem very favorably inclined on that, and there have been several cases where the power of the agencies have been overturned in the last couple of years. There was one...when the CDC issued the eviction moratorium in...I don't know if it was 2020 or 2021, that was overturned. "And so, basically, this has huge implications for us because what's been happening for the last 40, 50, 60, 70 years, really since 1944 when the Public Health Services Act was implemented in the middle of war, which I find very bizarre. You know, we're in the middle of World War 2, and Congress passes something called the Public Health Services Act, which grants all of this power to the CDC, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the FDA. And, what's happened now as a result of this overturning of Chevron is that they're going to be held accountable. They're gonna be held to a higher threshold than they were because they've been given all this deference for the last 40 years. And many critics of the Chevron deference is, their opinion is and it and I agree with this, that what's happened as a result of Chevron is that...a fourth branch of government has developed, the administrative state. "All of these agencies are what make up the administrative state, and they are all underneath the federal, branch of government. So, you know, we've got the Executive, the President. You've got the Legislative, Congress, and you've got the judiciary, all the courts. But now you've got this fourth branch, this huge administrative state, which is unelected and unaccountable to the electorate. And they sit under the President, and this is exactly what happened. When President Biden was elected and inaugurated, in his first full day in office, he instructed the CDC to issue the mask mandate, and they dutifully did so in one week. "This was not something that Congress had told them to do or delegated power to them to do. It was purely an administrative and executive order. And so what's happened is the growth of the administrative state has really destabilized the balance of power in our system and given way, way too much power to the executive. And so this Chevron case is huge for us because it means that the courts will no longer defer to the administrative agencies or to these federal agencies whether they're health or environmental or anything else, they actually have to be held accountable and prove in a court of law that the rules that they are issuing are based on science, fact, and have a true public interest. "This is very, very big, and it has an impact for all of us in the Health Freedom arena."

PETER ST ONGE: Many more suits are coming, perhaps tens of thousands given there are roughly half a million federal regulations almost none of which were actually authorized by Congress.

The administrative state is unraveling as hundreds of unconstitutional rules are being challenged after the Loper Bright decision.

Rules range from SEC mandates and anti-farming rules to transgender mandates and citizenship for migrants.

The left, gloriously, is panicking. pic.twitter.com/4GFbFWyUTh

— Peter St Onge, Ph.D. (@profstonge) September 19, 2024

Some rare good news as left-wing mouthpiece, Politico, worries a recent Supreme Court decision will be "abused" to erase the "legacy of the Biden Harris nightmare."  The decision in question of course is June's Loper v. Bright case that gutted Chevron Deference, as it said that major regulations actually have to be passed by Congress, not by unelected Deep State bureaucrats.  This is because the Constitution very clearly states that Congress, who works for the people in theory, is supposed to make laws, not random bureaucrats who indisputably work for themselves.  

Source: Article I, Section I of the U.S. Constitution.

Loper Bright gutted a "cornerstone of progressive policymaking their ability to sneak laws in through the administrative state and running voters," which, fun fact, converts democracy into tyranny.  So what's upsetting Politico is that if Congress is supposed to make the rules, it turns out the vast majority of rules in existence at the moment were not made by Congress.  They just sort of spawned from the moist bowels of the deep state.  Politico is upset that "small government conservatives are suing to eliminate these apparently unconstitutional mandates." Worse for them, in a separate Supreme Court case Corner Post said that "there is no statute of limitations to challenging unconstitutional regulations," meaning they're all at risk even the old ones.  So which moist spawnings in particular are at risk?  Well, we're only two and a half months into Loper Bright and such things do move slowly, but we've already seen a Mississippi judge void transgender mandates; a Texas judge block an unconstitutional non-compete ban; and an Ohio appeals court block a rule regulating internet companies.  Another Texas judge struck down so-called "parole in place" that puts illegals on a path to citizenship.  They struck it down specifically because the rule "illegally bypassed Congress."  Others involve former mandates, small business mandates, manufacturing, abortion benefits, price controls, and, of course, the Biden-Harris student loan bailouts that would make blue collars pay for other people's gender degrees.  None of these were actually voted by Congress, meaning they are all gloriously unconstitutional.  In theory, Congress could turn around and actually pass the rules, replacing bureaucratic diktat with clean law.  In reality, almost no federal rules are actually popular; that's why Congress passes the buck in the first place.  So in all likelihood, the vast majority of mandates that are struck down will stay down.  Democrats know this and being the party of the administrative state they realize that even if cackles gets the White House they are losing the game.  The activist industrial complex is being dethroned. Some major suits have already been filed, one to dismantle a massive market surveillance system run by the SEC.  Other challenges a raft of "conservation measures on small farms that would drive them out of business."  Many more suits are coming, perhaps tens of thousands given there are roughly half a million federal regulations almost none of which were actually authorized by Congress.  As each mandate melts away, the economy gets stronger and the space for Liberty expands how you run your farm, how you run your business, earn a living, and how you educate your children.  It may not feel like it, but we are winning.  Thanks to the Constitution, things will get worse before they get better but we're turning the corner thanks to some very brave men 200 years ago and the greatest constitution in history that they left us.

"THE ATTORNEY'S JOB IS TO MANAGE RISK FOR THE ENTIRE COMPANY"

A "State of Emergency" is mutual aid between the counties and municipalities of the state.  Period.  All of this stay at home, business closures, stay 6-feet apart . . . zero validity.   --Peggy Hall

Just because they want to be a demonic cult, they can’t make you take an aspirin or a line of cocaine as a condition for coming into the store . . .                                                     --John Jay Singleton

A MUST-LISTEN.
Peggy Hall of the Healthy American interviews her friend, John Jay Singleton of PrivacyFight Co.  

Find John's Facebook page here.  

Find Peggy's interview on her Facebook page.

Peggy also posted documents needed to file Notices of Discrimination.

12:58
You have a right to rely upon the law. 

You want to pick a fight and win it. It’s a fight.  It’s a challenge.  Go to the chief counsel.

Set up a claim:

Court as last resort.

It’s illegal to stop you from walking, from your path.  It’s illegal to touch you.

Walking into a business that is open to the public, if you’re restrained in any way, it’s illegal.  It’s illegal to touch you.  It’s a crime.  Known as unlawful restraint or false imprisonment to prevent you from going somewhere.  In fact, the person doing it can get arrested.  Your liberty has been restrained against your will.  Someone wearing a mask and restraining your freedom is even worse.  Calling the police and making a scene is not the solution.  The best thing is to document it. 

If someone says you have to wear a mask, you can keep on walking and ignore them.  But are they legally obligated to serve you, to accept your purchases?  If they stand in front of you, they’re restraining you.  Go in the store, you do your shopping.  If Sprouts decides to deny you services, you’ll be informed of that.  The store manager will approach you in the store and inform you.  

“Are you denying me services because of the disability I have?”  
"No, we’re not doing that.  It’s just that you won’t comply with the law."  “Well, I just wanted to get confirmation that I am being denied services because of a disability.”  So I got his name.  Get that admitted.  Get that recorded: witness, video on your phone, paper, whatever. 

Because you have a cause of action because of an incident report, and you include that with a one-half page letter to the CEO or to the chief counsel.  The attorney’s job is to manage risk for the entire company.  That’s who figures out the insurance rates, and who makes deals with insurance, and who tells the store what its policy should be regarding spills.  You document it, you’re halfway there.  So, you get the admission and you get the person who is responsible for that facility for the premises at that time.  “Are you responsible for the entire facility at this time?”  He said yeah, cautiously, because that means something to these people.  Okay, so you’re requiring a medical intervention of my daughters, so if I act upon your medical intervention and I have them wear a mask like you’re saying and they go and play, and you’ve not conducted any medical examination so you don’t know their medical background, nor are you competent, are you the on-site physician?  Is there a physician on-site?  Let me ask you this, “Are you willing to accept the responsibility and liability if one of my daughters collapses in an unconscious state? Do you have insurance for this?  He said, “Look, you guys don’t have to do all of that stuff.  He was going to let us come in for free.  You bring the store manager over . . . very politely.  You get that person to identify, to admit that he is responsible, that she is responsible for that entire property.  And then you get them to say, okay, are you denying me services now?  What’s the reason: I’m unable to wear a mask or unwilling because of how it conflicts with my religious convictions?  And if they deny you service, you’re done, then leave.  You don’t have to push it to where the police come. 

If the police are called, that’s a case for more damages.  Doh!!!!  Because it’s exacerbating the situation unnecessarily.  They didn’t need to do that. 

They can make their own policies but they still have to be within the confines of the law.  Just because they want to be a demonic cult, they can’t make you take an aspirin or a line of cocaine as a condition for coming into the store, right?  You can make whatever policy you want, but you can’t just break the law.

Bring the Notice of Discrimination with you whenever you’re going out.  I just want to be clear that you’re requiring a medical intervention.  Are you the licensed physician on staff? Can I speak to the person who is in charge of the facility?  You confirm, “So you’re in charge of the entire facility at this time?” and they will either say yes or no.  if they deny you services, you create that incident report.  If they charge you with trespassing, I believe you should leave.  Start the paper trail at that point.  Don’t escalate. 

The moment I have a civil cause of action, I also have a criminal cause of action.  An employee wearing a mask and gets in your way, that’s a crime.  How so?  Realize what your rights are, what their obligations are, and what the law is.  If you feel intimidated, that’s a trespass on you.  That’s an assault. 

When you walk into a public store, a public accommodation, that’s not a private club.  It is not trespass when you’re in a public building and the manager tells you to leave.  When you go into a store, you have an irrevocable license to be there.  Why?  Because it’s open to the public.  The license/privilege was extended by all the corporate board members, owners, managers, investors, etc.  that’s the privilege.  I do not have the privilege to go into a private property, private accommodations, and help myself to things in that house.  I do not have a privilege to do that. 

So for someone to come along and impose illegal requirements or act in an unlawful way, has trespassed against you.  You are not trespassing.  Now because you have an irrevocable license does not mean you can do anything you want.  If you disrupt the business, or you hassle people, make a scene, it’s not trespass unless there is a violation. For example, if the cops are called and the cop stops you and says that you’ve trespassed and he wants you to leave.  Your response would be “Has there been a violation?”  the police officer will know what that is.  You don’t want to win an argument with a cop or persuade anybody . . . I don’t care.  I am trying to document what’s going on here.  I talked to officer jones on this date at this time, apparently, the manager called the police on me while I was shopping. At the time, the store was open to the public.  I asked the officer if he had evidence of any violation?  Am I accused of violating the public peace, breaching the peace, harassing anyone, what type of violation is it, Officer?  You’re not trying to be flippant with him or anything.  You literally want to know. 

Restaurants and stores have no duty to protect the public.  Yet you’re acting in that capacity; in fact, you don’t even have the capacity to protect the public.  An epidemic or a pandemic does not repeal laws.  The DOH has a problem.  They’re supposed to police the unlicensed practice of medicine, yet they’re pushing the unlicensed practice of medicine. 

59:30
You have an insurance liability for the person who is doing it on that entire property.  Then you have a liability for your county, your state, and your city.  They have a liability for pushing this.  They’re part of it.   

59:52
When you get to Civil Liabilities, you have religious convictions.  You can't be denied services because of a religious conviction.  You can't be denied services because of a disability if you're in a wheelchair, whatever.  If they're actionable, it means you can sue under that specific statute, like California Civil Code 51, which reads

3) California Civil Code section 51(b) establishes: "All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all buseinss establishments of every kind whatsoever.   

The statute in Florida is Statute 760.  You can sue under that.  The way you sue though is that you don't just sue somebody, you have to document it and then you have to try to work it out.  Give them a chance to fix it.  But you also need to send a letter to the Administrative Agency that is supposed to oversee this type of violation.  Normally, it's like the Human Rights Commission.  In the Sprouts example, we can bring in the state agency that is supposed to deal with this.  

101:15   
John cites a page that is addressed to:

Department of Management Services

Florida Commission on Human Relations

4075 Esplanade Way, Suite 110

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020

(850) 488-7082  

If you state your case properly, you're probably going to get what you want without going to court.  They don't want to go to court; they don't want to go to court any more than you do because it's really expensive.  For them, it's really expensive.  If you go to court by yourself, you might pay $500 in filing fees over the period of a year, whereas for those guys, it's like $50,000.  As much as I don't like to sue, sometimes I win just because of the cost of litigation.  I'd really like to win on the merits.  

Here is John’s general statement:

I was recently shopping at Sprouts Farmers Market when I was confronted by the store manager [his name] who refused services because I would not dress like this employees or the other patrons and wear a mask or place a device over my head.  I did not file a police report because I really like shopping at the store and don’t want to get anyone in trouble, but I do have rights and I will defend them.

The following terms appear on Page 16 of Sprouts’ Code of Conduct & Ethics:

NON-DISCRIMINATION AND HARRASSMENT

Our team members are the cornerstone of our success.  Sprouts is committed to providing a work environment in which every team member has the opportunity to grow, develop, and contribute fully to our collective success.  Accordingly, sprouts’ written policy states that the business will not tolerate any unlawful discrimination and harassment based on race, religion, color, creed, national origin, ancestry, ethnicity, age, sex, pregnancy, childbirth, breast feeding and medical conditions related to pregnancy, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, lack of conformity to gender stereotypes, disability, marital status, citizenship, status as victims of domestic violence or sexual assault or stalking, military and veteran’s status, whistleblowers, or any other basis protected by applicable law. 

103:17
This part of your policy says that you have to respect these issues [and point].  So why not bring a case against them, not for violating your civil rights, but to get an injunction against them for something that they already admit to.  Why not bring a case where there really shouldn't be a dispute.  

103:45  Get the company's own policies and copy the pertinent sections.  I'm just suing so that you all have to comply with your own policy.  What are they going to say that they have another policy, a secret policy?  If they have a secret policy, that's not a store policy.  It has to be public.  Just like the FISA courts.  Those are not courts, even though they call them courts because they're secret.  There's not a thing such as a secret court.  What's John doing?  Is he saying that the FISA courts are by definition null and void?  So if you sue them for an injunction for violating their own policy, that incorporates all the laws they're supposed to follow and makes it a one-single issue which allows you to win on summary judgment.  A summary judgment says, 

Hey, Judge, you know what?  They've already admitted they have this certain policy and that they've already admitted that they've violated it, so I just want a summary judgment because there's no controversy here. 

An injunction enjoins them from breaking their own policy.  They're violating their own policy.  The court would order them to comply with their own policy.  And don't ask for money, I mean you can.  I would recommend not.  I don't think you should.  I think that you should just get what's called, "equitable relief," which is an injunction.  I think you can do it within 90 days.  We'll see.  I'm about to file this one.  I'm actually going to file one against Sprouts.  

I took the central argument after you identify the parties involved, the date, and everything.  This is what I told them, okay . . .

Mr. __________________ is not a licensed physician and on the date of ________________, demanded that I act upon his medical advice to undertake a medical intervention without any review of my medical records and without any medical examination, as a condition of patronizing his grocery store.

Subject, [last name], was not a licensed or insured physician.

Subject had not reviewed any of my medical records.

Subject had not conducted any medical examination.

Subject denied me any informed consent.

Subject demanded the medical intervention as a condition of patronizing his grocery store.

Subject failed to identify any legal authority for the demanded medical intervention. Subject failed to identify any medical necessity for the demanded medical intervention.

The medical intervention demanded by subject violates OSHA safety regulations under 29 CFR 1910.134. 

It's illegal all the way around.  Now, the thing I want to get into next is you've got the Human Rights Commission in your state, send your letter there.  Articulate the thing.  Use my letter.  Use my language.  That is what you do when you send the company the pre-suit mediation notice, the letter that says "Yeah, I was at your store, you did this thing that was wrong, I thought, and I am sending this letter to see if you can work this thing out.  And send it to the Chief Counsel and to the store manager.  And then send your report to the Dept of Health and send the letter to the Human Rights Commission in your state, your state agency.  Don't let the Chief Counsel or the store manager that you're complaining to the state, like the Dept of Health.  Don't let them know that because I think it's in your interest that you want them to make a decision quickly.  And if they see that you've filed a complaint to the state agency, the attorney might just say, "I'm gonna wait and see what happens there."  Because a lot of them are afraid to make a decision.  I want them to make a decision as quick as possible and in the background, I'm going to file these complaints where I can. 

The other health issue, which has been demonstrated, you'll see on the internet where people have measuring oxygen levels.  

He's referring to this video. There are others, but this is the one that broke this information first.  

There's a letter back from 2007 from OSHA, an enforcement officer, I think, he was talking about the actual science behind a particular regulation, which I mention here.  This [OSHA safety regulations under 29 CFR 1910.134] is an OSHA reg that covers the process by which an employer or an organization would make someone wear a mask on site.  There are certain precautions that have to be taken.  A physician has to be involved.  And a person being told to wear a mask HAS TO GIVE HIS CONSENT.  Even then you still can't make someone wear a mask.  

They have told us they're going to use test cases to see who is compliant . . . and see who is going to push back.  All of that has to be in writing.  And the beauty of that is that even with all of these regulations, and California is a leader in regulations, well, like you made the bed.  You've given us all of this . . .

Yeah, they have . . . .

And your idea of filing the violation with the Health Department is brilliant because they are the ones giving out the guidelines, and I believe that some of these Health offices are going to start backpedaling or . . . .  We've seen the Director of Health in Orange Country resing.  I think it was Ohio, Connecticut, Oregon, and Colorado, they've been falling like dominoes.  In your state, how many state and county health officers have resigned, have just been appointed?  Some of them are small, bit players, when they realize that they're placeholders, "I actually don't want to go to prison."    

John says, "That's right.  That's coming."  We'll see.  Serious.  These guys are going down.  I've just reported every member of my city council here for disaster fraud.      

You don't have to go to court or have an attorney.  You're going to use these tools and documentation against vaccinations, against contact tracing, against testing, you can use at your workplace, . . . what about the courts that require you to wear a mask?  Know property rights, privacy rights, irrevocable rights, places of public accommodation, 

The Chief Judge is the person who is responsible for the courthouse, and you want to in advance send a letter to the Chief Judge and let him know that he's accepting liability and responsibility and I have a whole list of things that he's going to be liable for and you just put him on notice.  You don't need his consent at all.  You just tell him.  1:12:48. 

1:12:50  OSHA spent decades establishing the science behind keeping workers safe mostly, and that has to do with wearing equipment that restricts air-flow or oxygen. Immediately when you put a mask on, it violates OSHA regulations, the moment you put it on.  And the longer you keep it on, you increase the chances of getting bacterial infections, like pleurisy, Legionnaires' Disease, and staphylococcus.  You're going to see a lot of people with welts and infections on their faces, you're going to see that more and more.  Imagine that you file a complaint with the DOH, for them purportedly requiring people to violate health and safety laws, and they're in charge of Health & Safety.  Who's above the Department of Health?  More than likely it's going to be your state Attorney General's Office.  And that's the person that prosecutes people for crimes.  That's the person who would prosecute somebody for dumping toxic waste or polluting the water, you know things like that.  So your next step up is the AG's office.  We're not going to get into that but this is I think is coming.  But right now we need to document what is going on.  Just look for your state's DOH.  Look for "unlicensed practice of medicine," download the form, fill it out, fill it out, fill it out.  Mail it in.  Just flood 'em with it.  

1:16:20

Complaint for Injunction Relief.  https://www.thehealthyamerican.org/notice-of-discrimination

John highlights a Florida statute

456.065, which makes it a crime to engage in the unlicensed practice of health care profession (without a valid license) and imposes civil and criminal penalties upon anyone giving medical advice or examinations without a license and the proper insurance and training.   

Okay, because jury trials are almost non-existent today, the best that you can hope for is an injunction—an authoritative warning or order from a court/judge.  You communicate.  And you allow the court to give you the remedy that you’re asking for, and this is the way that you do it.  Look at the courts as just another public facility. Don’t be afraid of it, it’s for you.  You’re not imposing on anyone, so we can use the court.  The rules are online.  John’s done 90% of the work here.  All that I have to do is fill in the blanks, put in your story—statements of fact—that’s if you have to do it.  Write it up.  Mail it to the Chief Counsel, and ask him, “Do you really want to do this?” and give them a few weeks to respond. 

I want to get to the Nursing Home case, and I think a lot of people want to/ought to hear that.

He saw his mechanic recently, he was doing the mask thing, and he couldn’t go into the building.  Hey, what’s going on?  Why you guys doing this?  Well, we have to do this or else our insurance company will cancel us.  The insurance company is doing this.  Okay, so if you’re insurance company says you have to pay more money or do another thing, they must have identified some new risk, okay.  Cause that’s what they’re about, right?  So I wrote up a letter for him.  Why don’t you send this letter to your insurance company and ask them, “What risk has changed, where have the actuarials been amended?”  The actuarials are what the insurance company bases the risk on.  Somebody collects statistics for years and years and years, and they go, “Oh, look, there’s a trend here.  Let’s gauge it this way, let’s price it this way, and then we’ll accept risk under these terms . . . right.  Well, ask them, “What’s changed?”  What new benefits am I getting?  What new services am I eligible for now that we’re doing these changes, right? 

Peggy: And they would have had to sign a new contract, wouldn’t they? 

John: Absolutely!  Well, possibly.  It’s a policy.  So they have to tell you what’s changed in your policy.  So can I see what’s in the updated policy?

John highlights a Florida statute 456.065, 

which makes it a crime to engage in the unlicensed practice of health care profession (without a valid license) and imposes civil and criminal penalties upon anyone giving medical advice or examinations without a license and the proper insurance and training.

We're showing how they're violating their policies and actually violating the law, and we're asking the court, "Hey, you know, this is grounds for . . . you know, they're reckless.  They already have a policy; we just want them to comply with their own policy.  And since they already have a written policy, there shouldn't be a dispute.  And therefore, bam, I should get my injunction, at least a temporary injunction.  And there are some technical issues, too, like a bond requirement.  

NURSING HOMES

Go and look up your state statutes regarding child protective services.  The dept of Children and Families.  Two Statutes: Public Health & Social Welfare that has to do with Resident Bill of Rights because they violate almost every single one.  There's no reason why we should lose this stuff.  

The right to civil and religious liberties.  The right to private and uncensored communication. 

Your federal statutes are under the Health and Human Services.  Under the United States code.  California Civil Code.  Google "Remedy for Nursing Home Abuse." 1:22:30.  For nursing homes, document everything and go to your state agency.  File a complaint or form with the Dept of Children & Families.  So what do you do?  

You find out which violations are being done.  List them all.  

Get the names of the manager.  

Get a copy of their policy.  Find the agency and file a report.  

"There's a pandemic and we have to break the law."  

"Oh, there's a pandemic and we have to rob your house."  

"Oh, there's a pandemic and we have to kill your dog."  No.  You don't get to do those things even if there is a pandemic.  You still have to follow the law.  Even during the civil war, they still had laws.  

1:25:00  Okay, where is the pandemic?  All I want to do is get past the Motion to Dismiss, and once I do that he's going to call me up and ask "What's it going to take to make this go away?"  Be polite to my wife and don't intimidate her when she walks into your store.  She's not wearing a mask.  That's it!  Attorneys want billable hours.  They have no connection to anything really.  

If you have to go to court, there are pleading requirements.  In a case where you have to sue, in order to establish liability for 

This comes from John Jay Singleton.  "How to Use an Injunction In or Out of Court Regarding Mask Wearing."  And here you'll find a Pleading Template with Line Numbering.

1:31:00  Naria is going to hold a filing party at her house.  And file Health Dept. violations against these stores who are acting as unlicensed doctors.  They're taking your temperature.  They're recommending you wear a mask. Excellent. 

Wow, it just keeps getting better.  Peggy explains that there's no state of emergency.  No pandemic.  No Scamdemic.  No asteroid.  No earthquake.  None of that can suspend the law.  They will tell you it can but it is completely unlawful.  The "State of Emergency" has nothing to do with you.  The "State of Emergency" is directed toward the agencies.  The "State of Emergency" says that the police and fire departments in Orange Country, CA can go up to San Francisco.  And that the people who work in hospitals in Bakersfield can go over to Riverside.  A "State of Emergency is mutual aid between the counties and municipalities of the state.  Period.  All of this stay-at-home, business closures, stay 6-feet apart.  Zero validity.  They sent up a trial balloon to see who would comply.  It's astonishing to all of us listening to see how many people complied willingly, eagerly, giddily, excitedly.  It does not give permission to the states to cancel the economy.  No store may enforce a policy that violates the law.  No "State of Emergency" suspends the law.  Period.  No executive order has anything to do with you.  If you work for the DMV and the governor says we're going to shorten your hours, yes that does affect you.  

John @ 1:34:00: Between 2004-2007, there was a law firm Walpoff and Abrahamson they were adding binding arbitration clauses to credit card agreements, which allowed the banks to bypass the court system and get a judgment against people and just take their money.  They didn't have access to the court then.  They were so greedy that that's illegal.  You can't promote that. CitiBank hunted John down.  They served his mom and his neighbor.  They couldn't find him.  Just to intimidate him.  So he hired the best criminal defense attorney.  Sue gov't officials for disaster fraud.  When you hit the IG's [Inspector General's] office and, that is going to bring down this COVID house of cards.  When the DOH [Dept. of Health] has been found to violate the law, that's a huge state financial problem.  There's money behind this.  There's unlimited money, and it's our money.  They're not going to succeed.  The WHO has formed the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, GPMB.  They're pushing money to all the countries to do this.  They're anticipating revolt.  COVID19 is a business franchise.   

What you have here essentially is the use of the Pentagon, the State Department, and the CIA to secure and protect lucrative business deals for this Yankee Cowboy Alliance.

This 8-minute interview w/ Steve Bannon today is an excellent supplement to the "West Texas: The Secret Heart Of The GOP Civil War" video below https://t.co/AfMZut7CMD pic.twitter.com/c5J53dbFdj

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) September 12, 2023

The geopolitics of oil in west Texas?  

My focus is a censorship industry but to disentangle what's at the heart of the social media censorship, you really need to understand the military industry, the finance industry, and the energy industry, and there's no place where that more acutely comes together than in the geopolitics of West Texas.  When Trump came to power in 2016, he didn't just defeat the Clinton Dynasty, he also defeated the Bush Dynasty.  And the Bush Dynasty grows out of this oil, intelligence, Defense Department, State Department, CIA wing.  You can almost think of politics in this country before 2016 as the constant struggle between Yale wing of the CIA and the West Texas A&M wing of the CIA in terms of the foreign policy plots that come out of the State Department.  When Trump came in and defeated both of those factions, they essentially banded together.  West Texas produces more oil and gas than almost every country on earth.  The largest oil field in Texas, the Permian Basin, produces more oil than the largest oil field in Saudi Arabia.  There is a grand Ukraine energy play here, which involves privatizing NAFTA gas and then killing Gazprom to capture the European energy market, the LNG Market, by taking all of this precious West Texas oil and gas and then shipping it, getting containers, liquefy the natural gas, and then you sell it at massively marked up prices to a captive market in Europe, and that secures windfall profits for Chevron Exxon, Halliburton, and Shell, all of whom signed multi-billion dollar deals with the government of Ukraine before 20 14 Maidan Massacre and war broke out with Russia.  They have a huge military interest in recapturing that territory to preserve and protect those Investments.  And Trump's foreign policy threatened all of that.  So what you see manifest here in the Ken Paxton impeachment is the same thing you actually saw with Joe Biden and Ukraine.  It's about controlling the prosecutors, because that's how you control the politics.  And so Ken Paxton went very hard on the Biden Administration.  He was the sponsor of the best anti-censorship bill in the country, the Texas Anti-Censorship Social Media Law.  And he was then  impeached it turns out by a Bush cabal, including George P. Bush, who ran against him for Attorney General.  What you have here essentially is the use of the Pentagon, the State Department, and the CIA to secure and protect lucrative business deals for this Yankee Cowboy Alliance.  

Do you think that this is now open conflict between the last remnant of the Bush hold on political power?

It certainly is.  What it reflects is a conflict of interest between stakeholders in the American Empire and the citizens of the American Homeland.  This was not really a civil war in the GOP until the fruits of globalization started to turn ill.  That is, during the bulk of the 20th century, I don't think that this Civil War within the GOP would have manifest because what was good for West Texas was generally good for the people who lived in the American Homeland.  Gas prices were low, export markets were secure, it increased American jobs and prosperity, but then as the wealth spilled over from the small coterie of stakeholders, our Foreign Affairs Mafia started to really only benefit them. Then people started challenging globalization started speaking up against the same Bush family Dynasty Legacy.  And now you're right, it is coming to a pitched battle and this is the fight of the century.

Families are deeply embedded in the administrative state for half a century.  The Kagan family has essentially been in control of Ukraine policy for several generations.  Even Tony Blinken, his father, essentially ran the CIA Voice of America archive for the George Soros family. Alex Soros Now controls $30 billion dollars to the Open Society Foundation.  This is actually a family society, not so much an individual society and most of the time that's for the best; it incentivizes a lot of wonderful things.  The issue is you now have a sort of Mafia family more than anything, and it's bipartisan in a way that fuses these bloodlines into political power. For example, George Soros is the largest stakeholder in Halliburton.  The chairman was Dick Cheney, and Halliburton holds the oil contract for processing the oil fields in the Ukraine.  So this West Texas oil story is deeply fused with a Wall Street and London stakeholders.

PETER ST ONGE: That means DOGE and Trump are simply enacting the will of the Supreme Court, which the Rogue Biden Administration ignored.

DOGE goes for the Death Star

Elon and Vivek just laid out their plan to effectively nullify the administrative state, its army of bureaucrats, and its trillions of waste. pic.twitter.com/8MntiNHJgy

— Peter St Onge, Ph.D. (@profstonge) November 26, 2024

The Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE, is going straight for the jugular for the exhaust ports on the Death Star. Last week, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy co-wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal laying out their strategy for radically shrinking the federal government, the unelected occupying Army that Lords over our Fair Republic.  Beyond auditing the $500 billion in pure waste and fraud, there are two key parts.  First is two recent Supreme Court decisions that invalidated nearly the entire administrative state because it was not, in fact, passed by Congress, who is supposed to write all the laws not just the fun ones.  The second is the long-established precedent that the president can get rid of government workers who are not needed, a so-called "reduction in force."  Put them together and you get a beautiful three-step process: first, get rid of the unconstitutional regulation that renders the bureaucrats redundant so assess minimum Staffing needs and force reduce away then the leftover money reverts to Treasury to cancel out the leftover deficit, or dare we dream pay down debt if greedy Congress things can keep their paws to themselves.  I covered in a recent video how the Loper-Bright decision alone renders nearly every single Federal Regulation unconstitutional since just 50 of the tens of thousands of rules passed per year are actually authorized by Congress despite having the force of law.  The other 99% are unconstitutional.  That means DOGE and Trump are simply enacting the will of the Supreme Court, which the Rogue Biden Administration ignored.  So concretely how will this play out?  So DOGE will present Trump a list of regulations that overstep Congressional authority, meaning ones that involve major policy decisions without explicit Congressional authorization.  Trump can then instantly pause enforcement effectively nullifying the rule and then do a full review for formal rescission, getting rid of the rule, at which point if Congress really wants the rules, they are free to pass them in a law which they will not do for the same reason they never passed [it] in the first place.  So nullifying thousands of rules would Rocket Fuel the economy but it would also automatically render tens of thousands of bureaucrats redundant.  Trump being a good steward of the Treasury can then fire them, and given the federal workers earn six figures with gold-plated benefits twice the tax-paying plebs, that alone returns billions to taxpayers.  But that is just the beginning because the problem isn't the salaries; the problem is the regulations themselves and the control it gives.

So I've covered how regulations massively increase the cost of everything you buy.  To illustrate, Biden was proposing rules that would increase the cost of a washing machine by $200, a furnace by $500, an air conditioner by $1,000.  They've been piling this crap on for 40 years.  One study estimated regulations add $10,000 to the price of a car.  Gets worse.  A study by the National Association of Manufacturers estimated regulations add $30,000 to the cost of hiring a manufacturing worker.  They add $50,000 a year for small manufacturers.  So not only does that mean little guys cannot compete, it drives all of them to China.  All of that gone with the swipe of a pen.  

Historically waste and fraud efforts get bogged down in the details and end up cutting a few embarrassing programs and then they peter out.  This time looks very different.  Elon and Vivek have correctly identified the thermal exhaust ports of the Death Star and they are going in.

"The workers comp route is attractive to lawyers because it's relatively straightforward in every state"

From JustTheNews. 

. . . failure by a medical professional arguably constitutes battery under state law because it denies informed consent to the potential victim of vaccination, according to Mendenhall. 

The people and the organizations involved with this effort are impressive and the more trustworthy folks that I've read and listened to.  

"Lawyers nationwide are trading notes on how to represent vaccine-injured clients, and some are trying state workers compensation systems for clients with plausible COVID vaccine injuries who were coerced to take the jabs as a condition of employment."  https://t.co/jKfZ1sGGv8

— Diligence Due (@Diligenceduenow) October 18, 2022

"We're trying to slot people into the right lawyers" for their specific vaccine issues, said Ohio-based Warner Mendenhall, who is also representing vaccine trial whistleblower Brook Jackson in a False Claims Act lawsuit against Pfizer and its contractors. The attorney is working with groups including the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, Children's Health Defense and First Liberty Institute.

Mendenhall started researching the viability of workers comp this spring and got his first ruling for his first client last week. An Ohio administrative court recognized the validity of the vaccine injury but rejected the compensation claim because the client took the vaccine "in anticipation" of a mandate set to take effect a week later.

New York-based lawyer Robert Krakow told Just the News he's been referring prospective vaccine-injury clients who were subject to employer mandates to lawyers who handle workers comp. 

The workers comp route is attractive to lawyers because it's relatively straightforward in every state and shouldn't be preempted by the currently suspended federal vaccine mandate on large employers, Mendenhall said. 

He pointed to a 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that moved a wrongful-death COVID lawsuit against a nursing home back to state court, finding the claims weren't preempted by the federal PREP Act.

The father of the boy, who has suffered "anaphylactic reactions to prior shots," wants him to get vaccinated. Mendenhall said he warned the doctor about liability that would stem from refusal to evaluate the ingredients in the vaccine in relation to the boy's medical history.

Such a failure by a medical professional arguably constitutes battery under state law because it denies informed consent to the potential victim of vaccination, according to Mendenhall. 

01:38. One of the things that we talked about was the growing administrative State, the Deep State, whatever you want to call it, and the tentacles that they've had in [American law and culture].  One of the things about this Chevron Doctrine we had seen that the Supreme Court was going to rule on it and they did just that.  A lot of different takes on the Chevron Doctrine and the Supreme Court's ruling on it, can we start by getting your take on the Chevron Deference and the Supreme Court's?

02:00. The Chevron Deference was handed down in 1984 and as far as I'm concerned it's probably the most consequential . . . the repeal of it is probably the most consequential well okay the ruling itself is probably the most consequential advancement of the tyrannical state in the United States since Marbury vs. Madison, 1803, it was terrible, or maybe the Dred Scott Decision, 

"The reason why Justice Jackson was going nuts is because it's a direct threat to the entire Obama regime of woke liberal academic institutional politics in America"

The ramifications of the end of race-based admissions is a real white pill moment. "YOUR WELCOME" with Michael Malice #266: Robert Barnes  https://t.co/pH3d4n23l2 via @YouTube

— Robert Barnes (@barnes_law) July 5, 2023

18:25. The woke regime and its administrative state within the academic structure depends on this upper middle-class favoritism with legacies, donors, and affirmative action for its sustenance.  What happens when, as you point out, it's working class kids from Vietnam who are dominating parts of, say, Cal's campus?  You're going to have a very different political response.  The degree of tolerance, the degree of people seeking out, "Hey, I really wanted to study intersectional feminist to study the difference between trans and whatever, and some weird category that they created with its bogus Professor who used to work for the Weather Underground, you're going to have all these people questioning administrative decisions, questioning not filling in the certain class needs a certain categories of the academy and not being on board with the political message.  The reason why Justice Jackson was going nuts is because it's a direct threat to the entire Obama regime of woke liberal academic institutional politics in America.  Their core base of power is the Academia.  The core basis for that power has been affirmative action.  Take affirmative action away, the pillar of wokeness falls, and we get back to merits and Enlightenment thought in our universities which would be revolutionary and critical for the sustenance of American society. 

It's not "democracy" when unelected bureaucrats run our lives

Kansas passed an excellent bill called the REINS Act.

It says, get this, that lawmakers have to be the ones to pass laws and unelected bureaucrats have to have their rules and regulations reviewed by lawmakers to be constitutional. Their corrupt Democrat governor

@LauraKellyKS

vetoed it. So much for dEmOcRaCy, right Laura? But the legislature overrode her in an iconic vote last night. TBH there are few things I love more than a veto override. Power to the people.

The REINA Act stands for "The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act) is a legislative proposal aimed at increasing legislative oversight of administrative agency rulemaking by requiring legislative approval of agency regulations with certain financial or economic impacts before the regulations take effect. In effect, to rein in rubber stamping by the administrative state that wants to override and bypass elected lawmakers over a piece of legislation.

Kansas passed an excellent bill called the REINS Act.

It says, get this, that lawmakers have to be the ones to pass laws and unelected bureaucrats have to have their rules and regulations reviewed by lawmakers to be constitutional.

Their corrupt Democrat governor @LauraKellyKS… https://t.co/WCm8PHtI7m

— Hannah Cox (@HannahDCox) April 30, 2024

Who really runs the world? A stunning interview with Sasha Latypova @sasha_latypova

If I had a list of the top ten lifetime interviews, this would be competing for number one. It started out with me comfortably chatting with our guest, Sasha Latypova, about the role of the… pic.twitter.com/vz5X7hIiXv

— The Solari Report (@solari_the) July 22, 2024

11:45. Somebody on Substack explained this concept well.  The whole Globalist One Health is basically labeling not health as health.  For example, the energy that's not clean, or clean, depending on who is opinion it is, which is not health is now health.  Plants, which is not health, are now health.  So everything . . . war is health.  They're announcing that Ukraine is a health issue.  Yes, Ukraine is a health issue!  If you're lonely it's a health issue.  So they claim that the entire world, every aspect of living existence, is health. And these local bureaucrats that have no business and no authority to make law actually make law about your health.  So your Health Department now makes de facto law because they're going to say, "Oh, no, you need to drive on this day not on this day.  You need to go lock down here," and this is all health regulation that has nothing to do with laws but the deprivation of your rights.  That's how they are claiming the world capturing the world while everybody is talking politics and distracted.  

I will never forget the scene in the 1987 movie, Escape from Sobibor, starring Alan Arkin and Rutger Hauer, where after a trainload of Jews arrived and departed into formation, the German commander explains that typhus [at the 12:04 mark] has spread in some of the camps and that the residents will have to take showers.  So totalitarians are always using "health" to get compliance from you, and why not?  We know that health is good for us.  We know that we don't do enough for our own health.  And none of us like disease, and if disease is prevalent we want to wipe it out completely for the greater good.

13:10, BREGGIN. One of the first things I did when the whole thing started is I got a couple of textbooks on public health and one of the things that was very interesting to me who were writing the articles were for themselves planning the future of the world, each one of them.  And they would talk about how they were going to have to do this and that.  And never did these individual articles say we might run into trouble with the Supreme Court and there was a Bill of Rights that would tell us you can't do any of these things.  It's gone. It's not in their minds and they've succeeded, as you brilliantly just described, at going around the whole thing bypassing government. 

14:04. LATYPOVA. By administrative diktat, the Administrative State.  Yeah, I published on this very scary authority that they give themselves, the CDC and then down to every Health Department including in your county, they give themselves the authority to arrest anyone without any cause or due process through quarantine measures.  And they already did that in 2020 when they arrested and put into Federal detainment into military bases about 3,000 people from two cruise ships on absolutely a secret PCR test that only the CDC had in their possession at the time and didn't allow anyone to validate it.  So they secretly tested everyone, told them that they were positive or exposed to somebody who was positive based on their own hand-waving rules, and took those people and put them into military bases indefinitely.  And people could appeal their quarantine imprisonment to the same people who put them there the CDC and the medical orders for quarantine were written up by PHDs, not by MDs.  So that's how they do it and they can do it at any time there are laws in the United States that allow them to do it freely any time and there is no recourse so that's the scary part and people have no idea that this exists in your health department can do it to you.  We recently FOIA'd so I had a CHD fellow help me to get the FOIA from CDC.  They only gave us partial response but even in the partial response this is very clearly spelled out.  These are the papers that they gave to these people, and they said, "We CDC have this authority under these rules, and you must go," and people have no understanding.  Of course, they were scaring them with things like "This is a novel virus," "It's very deadly," "You might not feel anything right now, but it's very very deadly and very scary," and "You need to follow us and we'll give you the best treatment."  And then in that military detention, 10 people died.  But we don't know from what.  

16:41. I think they gave them Remdesivir, put them on ventilators, and that's how they died.  And then they called it COVID, and then disposed of the bodies, paid off the family members.  And remember, it all comes back to money. Throughout this whole time, FEMA would give $10,000 to people whose relatives were killed in the hospital as long as they called it COVID-19 and shut up about it.  Most people took the money, burial money.  I know Ernest Ramirez's son, Michael, was murdered by vaccines and he was also offered $10,000 and he refused.  And some people did refuse.   That's probably how we know about these payments.  

24:00. BREGGIN.  You said that the largest deep state agency in the world is our Department of Defense.  Is that what you said?

24:18. LATYPOVA.  Yes, the largest globalist organization is our Department of Defense because they have something like 900 military bases with weapons, serious weapons, occupying various countries. They had a number of them all over Europe, most recently Sweden and Finland, who remained for a long time independent.  Now they have signed up to a Defense Cooperation Agreement, DCA, where the US now can occupy about 15 military bases in each country.... 

25:00. BREGGIN. Now is that part of joining NATO?

25:05, LATYPOVA. Yes. 

25:06. BREGGIN.  If you join NATO, you come under our Department of Defense?

25:08. LATYPOVA.  Yes, and the US can occupy 15 military bases in Finland and in Sweden, which are small countries.  It's occupation, and occupation has been ongoing since the end of World War II.  U.S has occupied Europe and gradually pushed these countries to give up their military, to give up their own defense in exchange for protection, and this protection also is basically the role, the globalist, of the US Department of Defense is to hold guns literally to every government's head so that they accept the petro dollar, the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency.  You're right the structure is shaky and collapsing.  It's not clear how long the collapse is going to take.  But up until this point the whole point of having a globalist army enforcement via the US Department of Defense was so that everyone takes the US Petro dollars, or the reserve currency, as a main global transaction mechanism, and that's the power that the US exerts on the entire world: the power of U.S. money and forced by US military.