Article Image
News Link • Vaccines and Vaccinations

Vaccination rights attorney Patricia Finn threatened with criminal charges

• by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Vaccine rights attorney Patricia Finn is being targeted by the Ninth Judicial District of New York State, which has threatened to strip her of her license to practice law and even file criminal charges against her. Finn is one of several "vaccine rights" attorneys across America who helps parents assert their rights to protect their children from potentially deadly vaccines. She's considered a hero by many, but a villain by the status quo for daring to stand up against the vaccine-pimping medical police state that exists in America today.

2 Comments in Response to

Comment by Rod Souza
Entered on:

It's called Judaical murder

Comment by Dennis Treybil
Entered on:

It's never too late to flog a deceased equine.

That being said, the recipriocal demonizations occuring in this situation distract from core rights issues.

In FP 78, Hamilton asserted that Congress was supposed to pass legislation which reflected the will of (We) the people.  If Congress substituted its will for that of the people, the courts were supposed to intervene in favor of the people.

Of course, Hamiltion said this at a time when he needed votes for ratification.  Once ratification was obtained, of Hamilton, it is said, every time he was offered a chance to vote on a measure that increased the power of the federal government, he voted FOR it.

Doubtless, Hamilton reveled in the supremacy clause.  Also doubtless, he probably did NOT revel in the 10th amendment.

The 10th amendment affirms the people's concurrence with Hamilton's (empty) promise made by him in FP 78.

Those who argue in favor of States' rights overlook the last phrase in the 10th amendment, namely

 . . . reserved . . . to the people.

Vaccination choices should be reserved to the people.

It being that such choices would not likely lead to riot or invasion, the federal government would have been hands off in 1789, and even moreso in 1791.

But according to the article above, this controversy originates in a state court.

(Maybe the anti-statists are right!)

I think I'll give the decease equine a rest at this point.

DC Treybil



Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:

Agorist Marketplace