The Case For Synthetic-mRNA-Free Blood
Why should we be part of your dumb experiment just because some of us identify as the public?
Unvaxxed blood is a poor name for the blood that Sam and Cole don't want in their son's operation. They don't care if someone had immune therapy that works. They care if you were one of the several billion members of the public pressured to participate in a questionable clinical trial—a clinical trial wherein none of you knew the contents or integrity of your batch. To want clinical-trial-free blood for your baby is reasonable; that's common sense. Those who willingly line up like cattle and blindly refuse to see the issue in injecting themselves with the unknown are the crazy ones. They're willing humanoid cattle. Of course, the opposition would encourage us to call ourselves unvaxxed or unjabbed; it makes us seem absurd like them. Ah, the argument of a serial contradiction of self-serving psychopathy.
People may not know this, but there are three types of lab cattle. Some follow the narrative religiously and get jabbed to protect others, even though it doesn't do that. They’ll even indulge in radical accusatory behaviours that contradict their first flawed belief by claiming those who don’t get the thing that doesn’t protect others are selfish. Some don't listen and tend toward selfishness; they let the hype scare them into getting it to protect themselves. Except, it doesn't do that either. Made worse by their denial of any other beliefs that belong to those who told them so. Some may have the inside track on the placebo group. That way, they keep all their privileges without the risk or loss of personal rights. Finally, some didn't need to get it at all; they’re smart and live in the private as men and women. Hopefully, they avoid being a party to fraud by not paying taxes to an illegal and unlawful entity.
What’s happened to Sam, Cole, and Baby Will is a travesty. It's ridiculous to think that after all the fraudulent decisions of the public sector, a judge would willingly grant workers of the public-sector custody of a baby! It's no secret that our government has been engaging in fraud for loans for decades. Look around; the country is on the brink of economic collapse, which seems to happen like clockwork every 18 years. Qui Bono, who benefits? Not the uninformed public. So why would a judge grant custody of a baby to people working for a massive fraud? Why would he do it when he has no proof to confirm the mother's mental incapacity? To cap it off, why would he do it just because the mother and father wanted accessible blood that is known to be safe?
Case Precedent for the benefit of the lender. Who borrowed lots of "money" recently? Hypothetical representatives of the public.
The civil court has no authority over a mother who knows she is the undisputed trustee of her boy's trust so long as she can prove that she can act as the trustee and the executor of her boy's trust. A judge can't over-rule her claim of right over his trust unless the court applicant can prove beyond all reasonable doubt: that she is not of sound mind and cannot provide the necessary care for Will. In this circumstance, Will needs specialist care, something his mother nor his father can provide. This agreed-upon fact initially gives the public hospital a strong case. However, Sam and Cole have presented reasonable conditions for the public hospital's care method, albeit in a flawed way.
Had their legal representation been aware of the need to use specific words toward a particular angle, the applicant would have had an impossible job proving their case. In the court of proof, the burden is always on the person who makes a claim, usually the applicant. Therefore, if you keep your case simple and you back your opponent into a corner of unproven claims with well-placed questions, the judge should rule in your favour. You want to do this because you're already in a biased arena of dogmatic popular belief. If the judge rules in a flawed way, you want as much proof in your favour to prove a failure of justice. You will lose if you go into a courtroom and present a complicated argument over what you think the science is around "COVID-19 vaccinations". After all, the judge is not a science expert, and who has the monopoly on science?
What should the legal pathway be for future reference? First, the mother, father, and son should have built express written ties to the private. An alternative option that avoids the debt-ridden dogma the public has found itself in through misplaced faith in an ideologically possessed witch. A contract lawyer should have sorted this before the debt-ridden public hospital applied to supplant the rights that the debt-ridden public no longer has. That's right; debt has turned the public into slaves.
For those who pursue common sense health over science-fiction "health," a public hospital is something you need to avoid.
The first question you should ask your public care provider is: Can you do this procedure to my specified conditions? If the answer is no, you'll now need to seek a competent private entity that will. Our media succeeded in getting enough attention to deliver those options. All the family required was a way out of the contract with an incompetent public sector. A public sector that actively refused to stand up for the Hippocratic oath when our leading Ponzi scheme - The Crown- offered them money for fraud-based clinical trials.
Had a contract lawyer organised an agreement to provide the conditional resources needed to complete the agreed-upon operation, the public care provider would have to compete against a private contract that offers better agreeable care. The applicant has a weaker case, as the judge has a better alternative option to consider. With no substantial proof of a better alternative, the judge has no choice but to side with the hospital to create bad case law. Case law that infers there is no concerning difference between pure blood and blood potentially tainted with the bi-product of a lender's fraudulent product. Arguing that the blood could be contaminated is pointless if the mother operating in her private capacity is the undisputed judge.
He who creates owns, and as it pertains to Will, the mother is the creator (the settlor), trustee, and executor.
In the past, I would have lept to my feet and passionately rallied everyone to rally at the courthouse and the hospital to intimidate public servants/order followers into making the "right" decision for the public/slaves. Instead, I've learned that acting impulsively is not utilising instinct correctly. Being stupidly impulsive plays into their hands, especially when they're more organised than we are. So, what did we achieve? We did support Sam, Cole, and Baby Will through a business ritual. A ritual that allowed Pfizer to carry on its immoral experiment on babies with the support of our case law. We may have gotten much attention, but what kind of attention, and what have we learned? What are we trying to achieve? A lot of emotional rhetoric with no gain of substance? Or are we trying to find a balance between both? If so, this case was not an example of it.
We're not going to change our opposition's mind by force communicating our ideology to them; we just won't. We either properly remove them by force or we all stop complying, if we can’t do the latter then the former is necessary.
I prefer the name "Pure Blood "
Brilliantly stated. You absolutely nailed it with this one.