"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.

Tuesday, May 4, 2021

More on evidence and the law - evidence re safety of COVID19 vaccines

I already wrote re redefining what constitutes evidence in respect to election cases, here.

Here is about evidence of safety of COVID19 vaccines - another sensitive topic nowadays.

We know that vaccines, as any other FDA-registered drug, takes years, sometimes decades, to develop - and the reason is the necessity for comprehensive trials of safety (longterm side effects) and efficiency of the drug BEFORE it hits the market.

With COVID19 vaccines, because of the pandemic, the FDA approved "emergency use" of COVID19 vaccines (not a full authorization).

I see a lot of shaming/blaming of people who refused to vaccinate in comments on social media, and, judging by same comments appearing at the same time under different articles of different media sources, it appears to be some sort of a coordinated campaign directed from up above.

Yet, let's look whether we have true evidence of safety of these vaccines.

1.  It has come out today - and in the "leftstream media", no less - that "coincidentally", as a point of "bad lack", the FDA has "scaled back" (a polite word for "canceled") a program for tracking side effects of antivirus vaccines RIGHT BEFORE the covid19 pandemic started.

It is a fact reported by the mainstream press.

2. If you or your loved one dies or gets injured by any medicine OTHER THAN a vaccine, the injured person (or his/her estate in case of death) may have access to court, sue, have discovery/disclosure of evidence and ESTABLISH CAUSATION of the injury/death - that it was caused by the medicine - BEFORE A JURY.

No such thing is available with vaccines in the US.

On the very contrary, vaccine manufacturers have obtained from the FEDERAL government (follow the hands) a BAN on ACCESS TO COURTS - to STATE courts, which federal government may not do, but it did, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld legality of this obviously unconstitutional scheme - 11 years ago, for all vaccines.

So, what do we have here?

1. a super-fast track of lab-to-market for COVID19 vaccines;

2. an "emergency use" FDA approval only;

3. scrapping of the FDA adverse events tracking program re antiviral vaccines;

4. the actual victims of the vaccines are not allowed to establish causation of their injuries, including deaths, in courts before the jury, after discovery/disclosure of evidence.

That is a whole lot of "science", don't you think?

What can possibly go wrong?

Let's make vaccinations mandatory.

Let's not allow people who refuse to vaccinate to enter stores, restaurants, job places etc.

In other words, let's starve them.

Because they think for themselves and refuse to play Russian roulette with their only life.

Informed consent, you know.


  1. Great blogging Ma'am
    Wish I had found you when I was battling DSS and Family Court - once only place your guilty until proven innocent
    Thank you for your commitment to thorough & honest information

    1. Thank you! They took my license on the day my lawsuit on behalf of 3 clients against DSS was scheduled for a jury trial - they were going to lose big, like millions of $$$, the case was very bad. So they took my license and then my clients could not find an attorney who would not be afraid not to lose theirs and take the case to the jury. The attorney they found sold them out and coerced them into a peanuts settlements - with a condition to strip me of my attorney fees for 3.5 years of my work that got them the settlement money in the first place. So...