The Wheels Of Justice Are Turning, And Other Things
The wheels of justice are turning, or so it seems. In our common law system the appearance is almost always that the wheels of justice turn slowly, so let’s hope that they do end up grinding exceedingly fine.
First up is an amusing story. You may recall that there’s a lawsuit going forward that is seeking to expose collusion between the Zhou administration and Big Tech companies—the object of the collusion being to suppress the First Amendment speech rights of Americans. In other words, the aim is to expose the government attempts to engage in censorship by subterfuge—using the Tech companies as cover. That’s illegal. The government cannot use private parties to do things that would be illegal if done directly by the government itself.
Well, obviously the plaintiffs are seeking to depose all sorts of government or former government officials, and they have obtained the court’s support thus far. Here’s the amusing story, to me, of one of those former officials who attempted to wriggle out of the subpoena for a deposition:
Judge Head Fakes Jen Psaki Before Blowing Up Her Attempt to Avoid Accountability
I can easily imagine the judge writing out his order with a broad grin on his/her face:
For non-lawyers, here’s the joke. Psaki was trying to evade the subpoena by claiming she was too busy with her job at MSNBC and, anyway, she didn’t want to spend time away from her family. So:
As RedState reported on Sunday, Psaki’s original request was mocked by a federal magistrate in Virginia before it was kicked back to a federal judge in Louisiana. As predicted, that judge was having none of it, and he managed to deliver a head fake before shooting down the request.
You have to love how he granted Psaki’s request for an expedited ruling only to send her careening back down to earth in a ball of flames just a sentence later. He didn’t even bother with some long-winded explanation for his decision. He just dropped it on her like a ton of bricks.
Short shrift. It saves time.
As usual, more at the link.
The next legal story has to do with Ivermectin. It’s delicious:
"Grade-A Gaslighting": FDA Says Anti-Ivermectin Campaign Was 'Just A Recommendation'
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which mocked Americans for taking Ivermectin to treat Covid-19, now says their campaign telling people to "stop" taking it was informal and just a recommendation, according to an argument made by government lawyers during a recent hearing.
"The cited statements were not directives. They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin," Isaac Belfer, one of the lawyers, told the court during the Nov. 1 hearing in federal court in Texas according to the Epoch Times.
"They use informal language, that is true," Belfer continued, adding "it’s conversational but not mandatory."
Yet, in 2021 the FDA created a web page titled "Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19," before then tweeting: "You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it."
A second Twitter campaign stated: "Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19."
Not authorized or approved for treating Covid? That sounds as close to a threat to take professional disciplinary action against any doctor prescribing ivermectin as you could ask for. It may not be a promise, but it sure looks like a threat. The difference is semantic
In a separate page noted by the Times, the FDA said: “Q: Should I take ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19? A: No.”
Jared Kelson, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, told the court during the hearing that that informal claim “doesn’t explain the language they actually used: ‘Stop it. Stop it with the ivermectin.'”
The FDA’s actions “clearly convey that this is not an acceptable way to treat these patients,” he argued.
Plaintiffs in the case include Dr. Paul Marik, who began utilizing ivermectin in his COVID-19 treatment protocol in 2020 while he was chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School and director of the intensive care unit at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital.
After the FDA’s statements, Marik was told to remove the protocol from the school’s servers while Sentara issued a memorandum to hospitals telling them to stop using ivermectin against COVID-19, with a citation to the FDA. -Epoch Times
As Justin Heart, author of "Gone Viral," notes, the FDA is doing some "grade A gaslighting now."
The other day I posted a video of an interview with Ed Dowd. Robert Malone has a substack that posts a presentation by Dowd’s group, which I highly recommend:
There’s plenty in this substack about excess mortality, but I want to simply copy the very reasonable presentation of the “dilemma”:
2. The dilemma of the vaccinated
If our concerns about what causes the excess mortality and morbidity are right, vaccinated individuals (the majority of the population!) will be confronted with a dilemma: Either they A) face reality and go through the phases of grief associated with such realisations or; B) try to ignore reality and hope for the best. Let’s expand on the two options of the dilemma:
Option A.
This is the “oh my god” option. Individuals who take this path will eventually come to regret having been vaccinated. Most of them will likely be lucky and only have minor effects (or none) from the vaccine, but they may have friends and family with health problems that have been caused or exacerbated by the vaccines, and they realise that they will have to pay more taxes due to increased disabilities at a societal level.
However, with this acceptance comes the hope of ameliorating this problem. More voices speaking out will lead to better funding and less censorship of the doctors and scientists who are trying to research the vaccine damage and develop treatments to mitigate it.
Option B.
This is the “see no evil, hear no evil” option. It is the status quo, the comfort zone for most vaccinated individuals. They prefer to forget that they took the shot. Like the rest of the pandemic, for them it is in the past. They felt well at the time, so they see no reason to regret their decision now.
However, if the majority take this option, the scientists continue to be underfunded in researching the long-term impacts of the vaccines, and if the day comes when a loved one develops an unexpected condition, the medical establishment will be confounded. The doctors will be treating the symptoms without understanding the real cause, and perhaps use treatments that are ineffective. But what will the Option B individuals think of these unusual conditions and the difficulty in treating them? No-one knows, life sometimes throws us lemons!
At Phinance Technologies, we decided to use our research skills to help individuals and institutions to recognise this dilemma so that then they can make decisions and allocate resources to reduce or manage the vaccine damage.
In addition, the “see no evil, hear no evil” option virtually guarantees that there will be a “next time”, in which the ruling class attempts to impose toxins on their subjects without medical justification.
Regarding FTX:
Regarding the economy generally, from a lengthy article this graph stands out - 9-12 More Months: How Long US Consumers Have Before The Bottom Falls Out:
Meanwhile, the Ruling Class continues to bring in cheap labor to replace American labor:
Wheels of justice will probably spin pretty quickly on this case:
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
We have come a long way since the heady days of Professor James Moriarty. Bank robber Michael Conley Loyd, 30, wrote his demand note to the teller on the back of his birth certificate while wearing an ankle monitor. It only got more bizarre from there.
Random question - why are there not more lawsuits from employees forced to get the vaccine? I’m a CPA (international tax focus). Law trumps regulations. Period. At least that’s what I’ve used for 15 years. The pharma companies never sent out vials of approved vaccines. It was all EUA. EUA banned compulsion for use. OSHA can’t override that. Employers can’t violate HIPPA for experimental treatments nor make experimental meds a condition of employment. Same for attending a university or school at any level. What am I missing?