(Updated!) Control of Communicable Diseases A Proposed Rule by the Health and Human Services Department on 08/15/2016

Here’s a perfect example of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and request for public comment as required under The Administrative Procedures Act. This one has a 2 month comment period. Beyond the fact that is a legal requirement for the agency to publish this solicitation for public comment, is it important to us?

It’s hugely important! Firstly, it makes for a permanent public record of the submitted comments, which the agency is required to consider and address in its final rule, and secondly, the proper issuance of comment gives the commenter legal standing to challenge the final rule with an action for injunctive relief against its implementation. Without this comment, it is likely that any attempt at such action would be summarily dismissed for a lack of standing by the petitioner.

As one will see, submitting a proper comment is a significant investment of time, not to mention the necessary effort and insight to “decode” the actual meanings of the proposed rules, and this is one of the ways we as “The People” are simply overwhelmed by this occupying monster we call government.

I’ve highlighted just some of the areas of interest and potential targets of comment. Some are more important than others, but they’re all important. I’m afraid you’ll have to search and read the complete areas highlighted for a complete understanding of the section in question. The entire posting is found at the hyperlink below. (‘Ctrl F’ is your friend)

“Apprehension”

“HHS/CDC requests public comment concerning the expected apprehension period (no longer than 72 hours), and whether there are any public concerns with the absence of a specific maximum apprehension period in the regulation.”

“Electronic or Internet-Based Monitoring”

“HHS/CDC specifically solicits comment regarding whether this proposed definition is sufficiently broad to apply to any new or existing technologies that would allow for the public health supervision and monitoring of an individual under a conditional release order. HHS/CDC also solicits comment regarding whether the proposed definition raises any privacy implications for an individual who is reasonably believed to be infected with a quarantinable communicable disease and who is subject to a conditional release order.”

“Indigent”

“CDC specifically requests public comment on whether the use of this standard definition is an appropriate threshold to determine whether an individual cannot afford representation and therefore should be appointed a medical representative at the government’s expense.”

“Non-Invasive”

“HHS/CDC specifically requests comment concerning this definition including whether the definition aligns with common perceptions of what constitutes non-invasive procedures that may be conducted outside of a traditional clinical setting.”

“Public Health Emergency”

“HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this definition and its utility in identifying communicable diseases that ‘would be likely to cause a public health emergency if transmitted to other individuals’ under 42 U.S.C. 264(d)(2)(B).”

“Reasonably Believed To Be Infected, as Applied to Individuals”

“HHS/CDC specifically solicits public comment regarding this definition, in particular, whether the definition aligns with established public health practice regarding the handling of individuals exposed to or infected with communicable diseases.”

“2. § 70.5 Requirements Relating to Travelers Under a Federal Order of Isolation, Quarantine, or Conditional Release”

(IMPORTANT) “HHS/CDC recognizes that the right to engage in travel within the United States is a privilege of national citizenship protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as well as an aspect of liberty protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Jones v. Helms, 452 U.S. 412, 418 (1981). However, this right is not unqualified and travel restrictions based on the threat posed by communicable diseases are valid. See Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1965) (“The right to travel within the United States is of course also constitutionally protected . . . [b]ut that freedom does not mean that areas ravaged by flood, fire or pestilence cannot be quarantined when it can be demonstrated that unlimited travel to the area would directly and materially interfere with the safety and welfare of the area or the Nation as a whole.”). Furthermore, HHS/CDC will afford individuals subject to these travel restrictions with adequate due process through the previously mentioned written appeals process.”(IMPORTANT)

“CDC specifically requests public comment on this provision. In particular, HHS/CDC requests comment on whether stakeholders have concerns regarding the requirement imposed on conveyance operators to not “knowingly” transport individuals under a Federal order and the feasibility of this requirement. HHS/CDC also requests public comment on the application of this provision to individuals under state/local order as well as individuals traveling entirely within a state.”

“4. § 70.10 Public Health Prevention Measures To Detect Communicable Disease”

“HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this proposed provision and whether the public has any concerns regarding the mandatory health screening of passengers using non-invasive means as defined in this proposed rule.”

“HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this proposed provision to collect additional personal information from screened individuals for the purposes of contact tracing.”

“7. § 70.13 Payment for Care and Treatment”

(IMPORTANT) “Payment for care and treatment under this section is in the CDC’s sole discretion, subject to the availability of appropriations, and after all third-party payments have been exhausted.” (IMPORTANT- Define “third-party payments??”)

“HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this proposed provision and whether there are any concerns regarding the proposal that all third party payments be exhausted prior to the Federal reimbursement of medical care or treatment for individuals placed under a Federal order for quarantine, isolation, or conditional surveillance.”

“8. § 70.14 Requirements Relating to Issuance of a Federal Order for Quarantine, Isolation, or Conditional Release”

” HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this proposed provision to issue Federal orders to entire groups rather than individuals.”

” HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this proposed provision and whether this provision sufficiently informs the public all of the important details concerning circumstances during which HHS/CDC would issue to groups or individuals Federal orders for quarantine, isolation, and conditional release and the duration and conditions of such orders.”

“9. § 70.15 Mandatory Reassessment of a Federal Order for Quarantine, Isolation, or Conditional Release”

“HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this provision—in particular, whether 72 hours is the necessary amount of time to conduct a reassessment after a Federal order is first issued, or if the reassessment should take place earlier or later.”

“10. § 70.16 Medical Review of a Federal Order for Quarantine, Isolation, or Conditional Release”

“HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this proposed provision—in particular, whether or not the public sees a role for the Federal government to ensure that basic living conditions, amenities, and standards are satisfactory when placing individuals under Federal orders.”

“HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this provision—in particular, whether the public believes that there may be non-indigent individuals, as defined in this NPRM, who may have difficulty affording a representative”

13. § 70.19 Penalties”

“This section clarifies that of the statutory penalties imposed for violation of quarantine regulations (i.e., 42 U.S.C. 271 and 18 U.S.C. 3571), this rule will codify the higher penalty as established in 18 U.S.C. 3571.”

“HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this proposed provision—in particular, whether the penalties as proposed in this rule are clearly defined and the circumstances under which such penalties may be imposed.”

. . . and there’s much, much more. Good luck!

——————————–UPDATED———————————–

“14. § 71.40 Agreements”

(EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!!) “CDC may enter into an agreement with an individual, upon such terms as the CDC considers to be reasonably necessary, indicating that the individual consents to any of the public health measures authorized under this part, including quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, hospitalization, vaccination, and treatment; provided that the individual’s consent shall not be considered as a prerequisite to any exercise of any authority under this part.” (emphasis added)

Control of Communicable Diseases A Proposed Rule by the Health and Human Services Department on 08/15/2016

Submit your comments here: Comments on Proposed Rule

MEP Luke Flanagan’s visit to the viewing room for TTIP: A farce

Do NOT scroll past! WATCH! This EU model may give a glimpse into the type of “Global Democratic Governance” that awaits everyone in the wings.

Also, consider the amount of other peoples’ monies that must have been appropriated to build such a sprawling, enclosed complex.

European Parliament MEP Luke Flanagan takes us on an amazing journey down an outrageous rabbit-hole of “democratic privilege.”

“Excuse the quality of the video at times, as it gets a little foggy! Appropriate really for an agreement that is foggy when it comes keeping its contents from the general public. As you will see the process is a farce. Please share.”

On The Matter of Jury Nullification

jury-nullification-jefferson  Upon occasion, the topic of jury nullification arises. In post-modern thought it is typically believed to not exist and is presented as radicalized bane to our present judicial system. One can only speculate as to why that might be as it is certainly not supported by any legal history. In fact, the precise opposite may be found:

“Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable (sic), that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.” [Georgia v. Brailsford (1794)] (1)

So, in very simple language, there you have it. It was originally understood that there were three mechanisms available to overturn an unjust law: Both Legislative and Executive authority exercised under State Sovereignty or by Jury Nullification.
Marbury vs Madison (1803) (2) created a fourth method (previously unheard of and NOT expressly authorized by the Constitution) called “Judicial Review.” (3)

And then, it gets a bit more complicated: “[I]n 1895 in Sparf v. United States, the Court said that courts need not inform jurors of their de facto right of juror nullification although jurors’ inherent right to judge the law remains unchallenged.” (4)

“In the courts of the United States, it is the duty of the jury, in criminal cases, to receive the law from the court, and to apply it as given by the court, subject to the condition that, by a general verdict, a jury of necessity determines both law and fact as compounded in the issue submitted to them in the particular case.

“In criminal cases, it is competent for the court to instruct the jury as to the legal presumptions arising from a given state of facts, but it may not, by a peremptory instruction, require the jury to find the accused guilty of the offense charged, nor of any offense less than that charged.” (5)

Some will argue that Sparf v. United States established that there is no jury nullification in federal Article 3 Courts; however, is that really what SCOTUS said? Let’s deconstruct,
“. . . [S]ubject to the condition that, by a general verdict, a jury of necessity determines both law and fact as compounded in the issue submitted to them in the particular case.” SCOTUS is very clearly saying “by a general verdict,” meaning by the established precedence, “jury . . . determines both law and fact as compounded (meaning intermixed) in the issue submitted to them . . . .” So, it is valid to presume, based on their own language, that SCOTUS said if the “law” element within the admixture of the “compound” were viewed as flawed, then the entire “compound” was flawed. I cannot see where anyone could properly assert otherwise.

After adding this to your “data base,” in the future, when anyone elects to challenge the existence of jury nullification, you might have a word in your mouth. Please comment as you like.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_v._Brailsford_1794
(2) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review
(4) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparf_v._United_States
(5) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/156/51/

 

Jefferson Was Correct

Jefferson’s Final Warnings (He was right)

In his last years – after a lifetime of learning and experience, Jefferson had one thing preeminently on his mind: the principle of decentralized government.

Rather than saying “centralization,” Jefferson used the word “consolidation,” but they mean the same thing. Here’s his core statement on the subject, from his autobiography, written in 1821:

It is not by the consolidation, or concentration, of powers, but by their distribution, that good government is effected.

This statement put Jefferson at odds with the political leaders of his time and raised difficulties for him, as he writes in a letter to Judge William Johnson in 1823:

I have been blamed for saying, that a prevalence of the doctrines of consolidation would one day call for reformation or revolution.

For the following passage – a letter to William Johnson, written in 1822 – Jefferson’s words are set in italics and explanation/commentary in plain text:

They [a political party] rally to the point which they think next best, a consolidated government.

Here he points out that political parties tend to favor centralization, which they certainly have since.

Their aim is now, therefore, to break down the rights reserved by the Constitution to the States as a bulwark against that consolidation.

This party is trying to steal the power of the individual States and centralize it in one city, and they are willing to alter or bypass the Constitution to do so. The fear of which produced the whole of the opposition to the Constitution at its birth….

Here Jefferson is saying the Anti-Federalists were right and that the Constitution could not prevent the theft of liberties by the national government.

I trust…that the friends of the real Constitution and Union will prevail against consolidation, as they have done against monarchism.

Notice his phrase, “the real Constitution.” Already in 1822, he needed to make this distinction, because the Constitution was already being twisted, overridden, and bypassed. Alternately, he may have been referring to the original Articles of Confederation.

In a letter to William T. Barry in 1822, Jefferson writes this:

The foundations are already deeply laid by their [the Supreme Court Justices’] decisions for the annihilation of constitutional State rights, and the removal of every check, every counterpoise to the engulfing power of which themselves are to make a sovereign part.

Jefferson is likely referring to the Marbury v. Madison decision of 1803, a decision that American schoolchildren are taught to revere. Jefferson, however, considered it a disaster, as he explained in the following:

The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.

—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

But the Chief Justice says, ‘There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.’ True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force.

—Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451

But, you may ask, if the two departments [i.e., federal and state] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best.

—Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:47

This member of the Government (the Supreme Court) was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum (at one’s pleasure), by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.

—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

Clearly, this action by the early Supreme Court was extremely alarming and vexatious to Jefferson. Though, what he couldn’t foresee was the plethora of Supreme Court decisions extending and expanding the unitary power contributing to the destruction of state rights.

Jefferson continues:

If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface.

Lincoln’s Civil War (which enslaved the states to the national government) brought the states under a single government. Washington DC is the seat of the American Empire, and the individual states are minor players. It was supposed to be the other way around. Unfortunately, most people have no real appreciation for the treason of this action. This is precisely where the precipitous decline of this federation of independent states began. This action was immediately reinforced by the passage of the 14th Amendment (Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868), which, among other things, created the heretofore unheard of “United States Citizenship.” It’s instructive to note that this amendment was issued and ratified over a two year period where only a few of the southern states had been readmitted to congress, these re-admissions occurring between 1866 and 1870.

Here is a fragment from Jefferson’s letter to C.W. Gooch in 1826:

…I have little hope that the torrent of consolidation can be withstood….

Finally, a passage from his letter to William B. Giles, in 1825:

I see…with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power.

(Adapted and expanded from Jefferson’s Final Warnings http://www.freemansperspective.com/author/freemansperspective/)

Observations Supporting Existence of The Perpetual State of Martial Law

francis_lieber_-_brady-handy
Professor Francis (Franz) Lieber

As often discussed by my very good friend Hal Anthony in his weekly podcast (http://www.reallibertymedia.com/2013/04/behind-the-woodshed-podcasts/) here is some food for thought in support of the contention that the United States exists under the provisions of continuous martial law:

“THERE WAS NO TREATY SIGNED TO END THE CIVIL WAR. The surrender at Appomattox Court House was a military surrender of an army which was surrounded. THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT NEVER SURRENDERED and even had it wanted to the United States government would likely not have accepted. To do so would have legally acknowledged the existence of the Confederate States of America and would have legitimized it and given it certain legal status internationally. Treaties are between two nations and the U.S. would never concede the legal existence of the Confederacy – EVEN THOUGH IT HAD A GOVERNMENT, ARMIES, TAXES AND ALL THE TRAPPINGS OF A MODERN GOVERNMENT.” (emphasis added)
http://www.nps.gov/…/faqs.htmhtt…//www.nps.gov/apco/faqs.htm

and, “Article 1 (General Orders No. 100 : The Lieber Code)

“A PLACE, DISTRICT, OR COUNTRY OCCUPIED BY AN ENEMY STANDS, IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE OCCUPATION, UNDER THE MARTIAL LAW OF THE INVADING OR OCCUPYING ARMY, WHETHER ANY PROCLAMATION DECLARING MARTIAL LAW OF THE INVADING OR OCCUPYING ARMY, WHETHER ANY PROCLAMATION DECLARING MARTIAL LAW, OR ANY PUBLIC WARNING TO THE INHABITANTS, HAS BEEN ISSUED OR NOT. Martial Law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest.

“THE PRESENCE OF A HOSTILE ARMY PROCLAIMS ITS MARTIAL LAW.

“Art. 2.

“MARTIAL LAW DOES NOT CEASE DURING THE HOSTILE OCCUPATION, EXCEPT BY SPECIAL PROCLAMATION, ORDERED BY THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF; OR BY SPECIAL MENTION IN THE TREATY OF PEACE CONCLUDING THE WAR, when the occupation of a place or territory continues beyond the conclusion of peace as one of the conditions of the same.

“Art. 3.

“Martial Law in a hostile country consists in the suspension, by the occupying military authority, of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictation of general laws, as far as military necessity requires this suspension, substitution, or dictation.

“THE COMMANDER OF THE FORCES MAY PROCLAIM THAT THE ADMINISTRATION OF ALL CIVIL AND PENAL LAW SHALL CONTINUE EITHER WHOLLY OR IN PART, AS IN TIMES OF PEACE, unless otherwise ordered by the military authority.” (emphasis added)

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lieber.asp#sec1

Thoughts?

Cracking The Cult Of The Constitution (Part I)

Cracking The Cult Of The Constitution (Part I)

Incredibly in-depth product based on intense research and presented in a most scholarly manner. It is a must read for anyone who’s trying to make sense of both our history and our present circumstances.

DHS Ammo Grab: No Longer “Conspiracy” But Plain Reality

DHS Ammo Grab: No Longer “Conspiracy” But Plain Reality

“The government may well be, however, deliberately attempting to restrict the supply of ammunition, thus the functionality of firearms, from the American people.”

If that could be shown to be the case then you could assert a prima facie case of treason by the willful subversion of Amendment Two. Settled law confirms that all the major components (e.g., parts, ammunition, bayonets, etc.) of “arms” fall under the constitutional definition of “arms.” Additionally, it is well settled that these “arms” described are of a substantially military type by the drafters’ intent.

“Infringement: A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; a violation of a law, regulation, contract, or right….” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

“Trespass” is one of the oldest and most serious violations in law. It directly relates to an inherent property right, which is the direct case in point vis-a-vis the Second Amendment. Your physical body and the direct protection thereof is a property right, therefore any willful infringement upon that property right is an unlawful trespass.