A new legal basis for slavery? The crime of the century, the COVID19 Plandemic, goes to court.
Posted by freedomforall 1 year ago to Politics
Excerpt:
"On Friday, 5 Jan. 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) agreed to hear the case about whether Donald Trump is eligible for Colorado’s primary ballot. The same day, SCOTUS also began to discuss the merits of another, possibly much more important case: Dan Robert, et al. v. Lloyd J. Austin, III, Secretary of Defense, et al. (Robert v. Austin), filed by a legal team led by Andrew L. Schlafly, Todd Callender, David Wilson and Lisa McGee.
Getting this case on the docket with the SCOTUS was in itself a major effort and a monumental achievement. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, and it could be days or weeks before they reach that decision, it will be a watershed moment: the first time that the public health response to C0VlD l9 and its grave implications will be challenged in court.
Getting a court hearing matters hugely because this is how we establish incontrovertible truths and set them on record. As Todd Callender put it, courts are the finders of facts: “We are refining the facts; we are refining the questions of law, questions of philosophy, society, God, and we are arriving at our baseline: what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.”
Ultimately, truth is the bedrock of liberty and deception is how liberty is taken from us. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that this case should be an epic fact-finding clash between good and evil – the clash in which you too can join the trenches of the freedom fighters (please bear with me and read on).
The three questions
In Robert v. Austin, the petitioners presented the Supreme Court with three carefully formulated questions:
Whether the unlawful implementation of the harmful Covid vaccine mandate in the Armed Services properly evades judicial review based on repeal of the mandate and separation of a service member who is subject to recall to duty.
Whether it is proper and authorized for a court of appeals to engage in fact finding, while going outside of the record, to dismiss service members’ appeal without reaching its merits.
Whether the government may properly force citizens to receive an experimental gene modifying injection, recognized in the medical literature as causing severe adverse effects.
Todd Callender laid out the importance of pursuing these questions in his recent testimony before the Croatian Parliament."
"On Friday, 5 Jan. 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) agreed to hear the case about whether Donald Trump is eligible for Colorado’s primary ballot. The same day, SCOTUS also began to discuss the merits of another, possibly much more important case: Dan Robert, et al. v. Lloyd J. Austin, III, Secretary of Defense, et al. (Robert v. Austin), filed by a legal team led by Andrew L. Schlafly, Todd Callender, David Wilson and Lisa McGee.
Getting this case on the docket with the SCOTUS was in itself a major effort and a monumental achievement. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, and it could be days or weeks before they reach that decision, it will be a watershed moment: the first time that the public health response to C0VlD l9 and its grave implications will be challenged in court.
Getting a court hearing matters hugely because this is how we establish incontrovertible truths and set them on record. As Todd Callender put it, courts are the finders of facts: “We are refining the facts; we are refining the questions of law, questions of philosophy, society, God, and we are arriving at our baseline: what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.”
Ultimately, truth is the bedrock of liberty and deception is how liberty is taken from us. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that this case should be an epic fact-finding clash between good and evil – the clash in which you too can join the trenches of the freedom fighters (please bear with me and read on).
The three questions
In Robert v. Austin, the petitioners presented the Supreme Court with three carefully formulated questions:
Whether the unlawful implementation of the harmful Covid vaccine mandate in the Armed Services properly evades judicial review based on repeal of the mandate and separation of a service member who is subject to recall to duty.
Whether it is proper and authorized for a court of appeals to engage in fact finding, while going outside of the record, to dismiss service members’ appeal without reaching its merits.
Whether the government may properly force citizens to receive an experimental gene modifying injection, recognized in the medical literature as causing severe adverse effects.
Todd Callender laid out the importance of pursuing these questions in his recent testimony before the Croatian Parliament."
