Nuremberg 2.0 Tribunal || Deana Pollard Sacks || Sacks Law Firm || Grand Jury Opening Session Comments !!

|

CREDIT:

Date: Saturday, February 5th, 2022
Speaker: Deana Pollard-Sacks, Sacks Law Firm
Court Of Public Opinion: Nuremberg 2.0 Trial
Grand Jury YouTube Video (All): https://youtu.be/ELTFNkCdzjA
Nuremberg Trials Website: https://nurembergtrials.net/nuremberg-trials-2-0/f/nuremberg-2-corona-investigative-committee-grand-jury-statements
LongXXvids Video: https://odysee.com/@LongXXvids:c/Grand-Jury-Session--1.3---Attorney-D-P-Sachs-:8

DESCRIPTION:

Nuremberg 2.0 Tribunal
United States of America based attorney, author and former Law Professor of twenty-two (22) years experience, Deana Pollard-Sacks, LL.M. (UCB '99), J.D. (USC '89), B.A. (UW '86), speaking at the opening session of the Grand Jury styled Court Of Public Opinion model proceeding to investigate the liability of defendants for crimes against humanity occurring during the Corona crisis.

Here she discussed the 'Liberty Clause' of the United States Constitution with respect to Medical Freedom and the unsuitability of the often cited "Jacobson v. Massachusetts" Supreme Court case as a justification for vaccine mandates.

TRANSCRIPT:

Hello my name is Deana Pollard-Sacks and for the past twenty-two (22) years I've been a law professor, constitutional scholar and civil rights activist and litigator.

I'm here today to discuss the derivation of our liberty clause, which goes back to natural law, and to explain why the COVID-19 vaccines are all unconstitutional based upon our history's jurisprudence.

On the 4th of July 1776, our founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence.

And, here's what they said:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

In 1891, our Supreme Court in a case called [ Boxford ] explained that medical liberty is inalienable and one (1) of the most cherished rights we can ever have they said:

"No right is held more sacred or is more carefully guarded by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority law. The right to one's person may be said to be a right of complete immunity to be let alone."

In 1914, Justice Cardoso, who later became a United States Supreme Court Justice, put it this way:

"Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages."

These same exact concepts and verbatim statements by our court have been reiterated over the decades.

In 1990 for example, in a case called "Cruzan v. Director", Missouri Department of Health the Supreme Court basically held that each individual has a right to reject medical treatment.

That goes back to the English Common Law.

And here's what Justice Brennan said in the Cruzan case:

"Anglo-American Law starts with the premise of thoroughgoing self-determination it follows that each man is considered to be the master of his own body and he may, if he be of sound mind, expressly prohibit the performance of life-saving surgery or other medical treatment."

How is it then that our governments are pushing a medical treatment on us without consent?

Not real consent.

They are coercing our people to take a vaccine that's experimental in nature upon threat of their livelihoods, their homes and their education.

Well, our government's relying on a case called "Jacobson v. Massachusetts."

So, I'm going to explain the case and explain why it actually supports our side that we get to choose medicine and medical treatments for our bodies.

The case does not support the vaccine manufacturers and does not support vaccine mandates.

In 1902, during a smallpox pandemic, that killed hundreds of millions of people internationally, the state of Massachusetts passed a law and the law said that each person must be vaccinated for smallpox or pay a five dollar fine.

That's exactly what the law said. It was an ‘either-or' law giving people the option to pay a five-dollar fine if they don't want to get vaccinated.

Well, Mr Jacobson believed that his liberty interest protected him both from the vaccination and from paying the five-dollar fine.

So, he went all the way to the United States Supreme Court after paying the five-dollar fine and he wanted his money back.

And the Supreme Court looked at the medical evidence. The smallpox vaccine had been in use for a hundred years it was being used all over the world with a great deal of efficacy and it was quelling one (1) of the worst pandemics in the history of the world.

After reviewing the medical evidence carefully, after making findings concerning the efficacy and safety of the vaccine and the need for the smallpox vaccine, the court decided that Mr Jacobson did not get his five dollars back.

Now, keep in mind also Mr Jacobson believed he had a liberty interest to run around town and be seen out all over town without being vaccinated.

So, he sort of flaunted the fact that he wasn't vaccinated because he believed he had the right to be out and about without the medical treatment he did not want.

And so, the court's opinion was based on all of these facts.

And these facts do not support COVID mandates today. In fact, one (1) of the last things the court said in "Jacobson v. Massachusetts", and I quote:

"We now decide only that the statute covers the present case and that nothing clearly appears that would justify this court in holding it to be unconstitutional and inoperative in its application to the plaintiff, Mr Jacobson."

There are several reasons why Jacobson does not support the vaccine mandates of today concerning the CoronaVirus.

First, there's an enormous difference concerning the public risks involved. The smallpox pandemic was killing up to 60 percent (60%) of people in villages when the smallpox came through. Anywhere from 20 to 60 percent (20% to 60%) of people were dying with an overall death rate of about 30 percent (30%).

In some, at some periods, over 90 percent (90%) of babies who were exposed to smallpox were dying. Now compare that to COVID-19 that kills a tiny fraction of one percent (1%) of people, the public risk is not even close.

The second thing is, the COVID-19 vaccines are not really vaccines at all. Unlike the vaccines in history which stopped infection and stopped transmission these vaccines do neither. These are experimental vaccines.

They haven't been around for one-hundred 100) years. They haven't been tried and tested. And our people are being subjected to an experimental vaccine when none of us really know what the long-term effects are going to be.

And finally, the law in "Jacobson v. Massachusetts" gave an option for the people to pay five dollars.

Today that would be just under $150.

Compare that to people losing their livelihoods, all that they've worked for, their homes and their college education because they won't submit to an experimental vaccine.

There is simply no comparison.

"Jacobson v. Massachusetts" does not support the vaccine manufacturers or the vaccine mandates.

So, some of you may be wondering then why haven't the COVID vaccine mandates been declared unconstitutional fully.

Well, some of them have been.

But, there's one (1) that withstood the Supreme Court scrutiny on Thursday, January 13th, 2022.

So, I want to explain that.

First of all, the health care worker vaccine mandate arose from the taxing and spending clause of the United States Constitution found in Article 1 section 8. Congress has historically been given great latitude to attach strings to Federal monies. So, you take the sour with the sweet.

And if you want Federal monies you have to submit to the conditions by Congress.

Throughout history Congress has been allowed to put conditions on the receipt of Medicare and Medicare funding, and specifically has authorized conditions to limit the transmission of communicable diseases.

Still, the opinion was five to four. With only five justices agreeing that the vaccine mandate for health care workers passed the original test to see whether or not the court would stop the enforcement of the vaccine mandate.

But the real question is, as Justice Thomas indicated, why wasn't the efficacy and safety of the vaccine considered? It was not considered. And Justice Thomas made that very clear in his dissent, joined by three (3) other justices.

The reason that the vaccine's efficacy and safety was not considered is because the issue is not before the court. Of the twenty (22) states who challenged the health care vaccine mandate, no state claimed that the mandate violated the liberty clause.

The liberty clause is where we find our medical freedoms. Throughout history the liberty clause is the clause used to protect us against unwanted medical procedures and even to allow us to demand medical procedures that we want.

So, you will see behind me a picture of the United States Supreme Court house.

I have faith that when our justices are presented with the medical facts concerning the efficacy of the vaccine, the need for the vaccine and the way our governments are bullying and coercing people to take the vaccine against their desire, the court will uphold our liberty rights and they will declare all the vaccines unconstitutional.

Later today, in the end, in the days that follow, you'll be hearing from a number of medical professionals describing why this vaccine is nothing like the vaccines of the past.

So, I encourage you to stay tuned in and thank you for watching.