JOBS, the Acronym (Jacobson, Outlawry, Blaisdell, Self-Defense)
by Mary W Maxwell, LLB -- ways to fight mandatory vax
We are in crisis. German author Ernst Wolff recently summed it up nicely in a September 20, 2020 article at GumshoeNews.com. A handful of people, he says, is now able to control the world economy, and this will affect you personally, soon, in very unpleasant ways.
For an attempt to overcome the extraordinary power now wielded by those few men, the participation of citizens is vital. I personally have no talent for forming an organization, and I‘m not sure an organization would work. But I have talent for recognizing that society is the owner of the law, at least in the US. I am certain that law is a significant challenge to the overlords. It is a weapon of well-established validity.
In this short article, I ask citizens to make use of four items in order to resist and reject the pandemic trick with its threat of vaccination and arrest of people who protest. I have spelled each out more fully in my new book “Grass Court: How To Use Law To Deal with the Pandemic.”
The four things are: the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Jacobson regarding forced vax, the law of Outlawry, the Blaisdell case, and the law of Self-defense. They can be blended to the acronym JOBS. Please become comfortable with all of them so you can use them to counter every stupid claim that the government has authority over your body. Let me begin with the Blaisdell case.
Home Builders v Blaisdell (1931)
The US Constitution does not say what the government (any branch) should do if there is a health emergency. Indeed the Framers in 1787 did not grant any power to Congress to deal with health – that is a state matter. Since 1976 there has been a federal law called The National Emergencies Act. Many presidents have invoked it.
Can either Congress or the president decide that all persons must be vaccinated, or that all must, say, open their homes to inspection? Certainly not. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution says
“The Right of the People to be secure in their Persons Houses, Papers and Effects against unreasonable Searches and Seizures shall not be violated.”
Wait! That was written in 1789 and later, in 1976, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act. Doesn’t that law mean that IN EMERGENCY, the right of a citizen to those Fourth Amendment protections has to be cut back? Can’t Congress come up with good laws that overturn the Constitution?
The answer is: Emphatically no. Luckily, this was stated in Home Builders v Blasdell – which I call “Blaisdell.” A majority ruling by the Supreme Court said:
“Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power [wow] .... The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power...were not altered by emergency.”
Although that was written in 1931, it has not been overturned and so it remains as the binding precedent. You can shout it from the rooftops: “Officials today cannot override the Bill of Rights.” If they try to do so, don’t let them. Believe me, they are worried about your response – so sock it to them.
If someone is about to hurt you, you have a well-established right to prevent that from happening. How could it be otherwise? Who would ever pass a law saying “Don’t shoot your attacker?” There is no such law.
Your right to preserve your own life comes first if someone else is about to kill you or deliver serious bodily injury. Similarly, you can act violently in defense of another person close by. If there is a nonviolent way to do it, that is of course preferable.
Here is an Australian High Court ruling (DPP v Zecevic), on self-defense, also known as justifiable homicide:
“The question to be asked in the end is simple. It is whether the accused believed upon reasonable grounds that it was necessary in self-defence to do what he did. If he had that belief and there were reasonable grounds for it, or if the jury is left in reasonable doubt about the matter, then he is entitled to an acquittal.”
That ruling, of 1987, is based on common law that pertains in each of the 50 states of the US.
The Vaccination Case -- Jacobson v Massachusetts
In 1904, a man named Henning Jacobson violated a state law mandating vaccination for smallpox. Massachusetts had passed a law that gave the local health departments the right to determine what was needed for public health in their district. When Jacobson said No to being vaxxed, he was fined $5.00. (comparable to more than $100.00 today).
In a very philosophical manner, the Supreme Court said:
"[Mr Jacobson’s] other eleven propositions all relate to alleged injurious or dangerous effects of vaccination. The defendant 'offered to prove and show [by] competent’ evidence these socalled facts. Each of them, in its nature, is such that it cannot be stated as a truth, otherwise than as a matter of opinion.
"The only 'competent evidence' that could be presented to the court to prove these propositions was the testimony of experts, giving their opinions. [Nevertheless, the judge] would have been obliged to consider the evidence in connection with facts of common knowledge, which the court will always regard in passing upon the constitutionality of a statute."
It is true that a court uses common knowledge – dogs bark, a child grows up to be an adult, the capital of New Hampshire is Concord. But today the dangers of vaccines are themselves common knowledge.
Justice Harlan, writing for the Court in Jacobson, went on to say:
“The authority of the state to enact this statute is to be referred to what is commonly called the police power,—a power which the state did not surrender when becoming a member of the Union under the Constitution. Although this court has refrained from any attempt to define the limits of that power, yet it has distinctly recognized the authority of a state to enact quarantine laws and 'health laws of every description;' ...”
That’s what we want to hear. The states, not the Executive of the US should be the deciders.
Continuing with its 1905 opinion:
"There is, of course, a sphere within which the individual may assert the supremacy of his own will, and rightfully dispute the authority of any human government ... to interfere with the exercise of that will. But it is equally true that in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand."
Again, this is good news. In the 2020 pandemic, the dangers have been so far unmeasurable since the test for Covid-19 is not reliable. (The Nobel Prize-winning scientist who invented the Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) proclaims that it cannot be used for diagnosis!)
Finally, the Court said that its ruling did not stand for the position that every legislative health act is beyond question:
“Before closing this opinion we deem it appropriate ... to observe ... that the police power of a state, whether exercised directly by the legislature, or by a local body acting under its authority, may be exerted in such circumstances, or by regulations so arbitrary and oppressive in particular cases, as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent wrong and oppression.”
I say a new case needs to be brought soon to get a new opinion.
So far, my proposed acronym “JOBS” has been explained in terms of Jacobson, Blaisdell, and the law of Self-defense. Lastly, we turn to the law of Outlawry.
It’s not for nothing that the term “outlaw” was used to describe criminals in the Wild West. Since there were no police officers, the thief or the murderer was outside the reach of the law. The whole situation was lawless. Therefore, the aggrieved parties had to do what was needed to counteract criminality.
The ancient law of outlawry is still in force as a part of common law -- unless a state has specifically repealed it. This law makes it your duty to give the outlaw no food, no haven. You are allowed to kill him. He is “civilly dead.” To qualify, he has to be “beyond the law.” Is that not true of many people today?
Consider the case of the now-deceased Jeffrey Epstein who ran a sex trafficking business whose likely purpose was to get top politicians into bed with underage girls, for blackmail purposes. Everyone knew his crimes but he wasn’t arrested until 2008 -- and then got a deal from the DoJ by pleading guilty to two state charges.
He got a mere 13 months in a semi-jail. At the time, the FBI had identified 36 underage victims. If you were a victim, you would have realized that this plea deal shows that Epstein was above the law – no one was willing to hold him.
I say he was an outlaw. It is hard to know at what point the public could have killed him under the Law of Outlawry. You may say “The law WAS working; he did get some punishment.” I say that’s lawyerese talk. Anyone can see Epstein was protected. He was nvted to continue his crimes.
In a 1854 case in New South Wales, Australia -- R v Elliot -- the judge said that it is justifiable homicide to kill an outlaw as long as the hue and cry has been raised:
“The Law of England makes every man an officer to arrest a Traitor or Felon, and all persons of Competent Age, who are present where treason or felony is committed or a dangerous wound is given, are bound to apprehend the Offender on pain of being fined and imprisoned for their neglect; they are also bound to raise Hue and Cry, and pursue him....”
My 2020 book, Grass Court, says that an amateur court (somewhat like a moot court that law students perform) could carry out a trial of any person who appears to have engaged in treason or genocide -- crimes where it is structurally predictable that the miscreant will be protected.
It is up to you to make the hue and cry first. And check your state to see if it has ever explicitly repealed the law of outlawry. If it hasn’t, then the law of outlawry applies, via common law, which is the customary law that we inherited from Mother England.
Thank you, Mom.
Note: my book, “Grass Court: How To Use Law To Deal with the Pandemic,” is a free download at GumshoeNews.com.
A link below will take you to the stunning article that I mentioned by Ernst Wolff, on the handful of economic rulers who have taken over the world.
And here is a thought-provoking compilation about Biden.