ICWA Weekly News 5-29-24
Federal court dismisses First Amendment case against the WMC setting stage for appeal as doctors continue to be harassed in Washington; Digital currency threat recognized by DC House.
In this issue:
Judge Rice Shows His Faith in the Deep State of the Washington Medical Commission
Digital Currency As a Threat to Medical Freedom
Vancouver screening of Protocol 7 moved to June 12
May 24 Episode of Informed Life Radio - - notes and links
Health Hour - They Answered the Call
During this Memorial Day special ‘Informed Life Radio’ episode, hosts pay tribute to those who stood up, spoke out, and took action against medical tyranny to save lives at the cost of their personal careers. They also take time to honor those who were injured or killed by vaccines, and provide updates on some of the lawsuits seeking justice as well as protection against future harm.
Liberty Hour - Justice for Vaccine Victims
In this Memorial Day Weekend episode of the LIBERTY HOUR, hosts honor those who were injured or killed by vaccines, and provide updates on some of the lawsuits seeking justice as well as protection against future harm.
Humanity Betrayal Project Cases Archive - COVID-19 Humanity Betrayal Memory Project (chbmp.org)
John Sienkiewicz ICWA Weekly News stories:
Judge Rice Shows His Faith in the Deep State of the Washington Medical Commission
“I am so wise I had my mouth sewn shut.” - John Berryman from “Dream Songs”
In chapter four of his book, The Dying Citizen, Victor Davis Hanson describes the “administrative state,” which is synonymous with the “deep state.” *
In some sense, the best definition of the administrative state is just this absorption of the constitutionally separate powers of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches into one omnipotent entity—into the hands of people never elected to their positions of power. The regulator, after all, has no constituency that periodically audits his conduct at the polls. He can create a rule and then become the judge of whether the targeted citizen has broken it.
Rick Jaffe, a lawyer from Children’s Health Defense (CHD) mentioned a year ago how the Washington Medical Commission (WMC) has abused this administrative state:
The Washington Medical Commission is under the constitutionally mistaken belief that medical boards can discipline physicians for what they say in public. That was something that was floated by the Federation of State Medical Boards [FSMB] in a July 2021 press release, but since then every single state that has considered doing this has backed off, except in Washington.
On May 22, In the United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington, Judge Thomas O. Rice showed his support for such a deep state when he dismissed the case pursued by Children’s Health Defense lawyers, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., against Attorney General Bob Ferguson and the Washington Medical Commission for silencing doctors’ public speech. Stockton v Ferguson plaintiffs included NBA legend John Stockton of Spokane, Dr. Richard Eggleston, Dr. Thomas Siler, Dr. Dan Moynihan, members of the Washington chapter of Children’s Health Defense, and many as-yet unnamed plaintiffs who have all experienced the effects of misplaced WMC policies.
Judge Rice showed his support of the WMC’s administrative policies when he wrote the following in his First Amendment challenges section:
Even if the ripeness and abstention doctrines did not create a barrier to judicial review and Plaintiffs had presented a plausible as-applied First Amendment challenge, this Court still could not grant them relief on their First Amendment claims. As discussed above, the Commission may fully regulate professional conduct of physicians licensed to practice in this state. States may regulate professional conduct, even though that conduct incidentally involves speech. Tingley v. Ferguson, 47 F.4th 1055, 1074 (9th Cir. 2022). “[C]onduct may indicate unfitness to practice medicine if it raises reasonable concerns that the individual may abuse the status of being a physician in such a way as to harm members of the public, or if it lowers the standing of the medical profession in the public's eyes.” Haley v. Med. Disciplinary Bd., 117 Wash. 2d 720, 733 (1991). The Commission’s regulation of medical professionals does not violate the First Amendment …As discussed in the preceding sections, the other Plaintiffs who are not subject to the Commission have also failed to articulate a First Amendment violation. The State has not prevented them from hearing what they want to hear. As such, Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims must be dismissed.
But one of the decisions cited above, was not about free speech in public places, it was about a medical intervention that included speaking—as in talk therapy. Tingley v. Ferguson, 47 F.4th 1055, 1074 (9th Cir. 2022) concluded: “Washington's licensing scheme for health care providers, which disciplines them for practicing conversion therapy on minors, does not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments. States do not lose the power to regulate the safety of medical treatments performed under the authority of a state license merely because those treatments are implemented through speech rather than through scalpel.”
And the other decision cited, Haley v. Med. Disciplinary Bd., 117 Wash. 2d 720, 733 (1991), also had nothing to do with free speech in public. The court found that “a doctor's sexual relationship with a juvenile former patient demonstrated unfitness to practice medicine warranting professional discipline.”
The thrust of Judge Rice’s dismissal was that the plaintiffs’ complaints were “unripe.” The opening paragraph in his “Ripeness” section shows what he means.
Plaintiffs’ claims are constitutionally unripe because they fail to allege a cognizable injury with concreteness and particularity. Plaintiffs Eggleston, Siler, and the unknown Doe physicians have not been sanctioned for their speech by the Commission. See Twitter, 56 F.4th at 1173-74 (although the requirements of ripeness are applied “less stringently in the context of First Amendment claims,” a plaintiff may not “nakedly assert[ ] that his or her speech was chilled”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). While Plaintiffs allege that the Commission’s actions have a chilling effect, Plaintiffs have in fact continued to press their narratives about COVID-19 while Commission proceedings have been ongoing.
Rice then pointed to Dr. Eggleston’s case:
See ECF No. 17 at 13 (describing how Dr. Eggleston continued to publish false claims about COVID after the filing of the Statement of Charges against him). This tends to cut against any argument that the Commission’s investigations have actually chilled Plaintiffs’ speech. Plaintiffs’ argument that the Commission’s investigations or imposition of sanctions might chill their speech in the future is likewise impermissibly speculative.
In the Background section preceding the Ripeness section, Rice detailed Dr. Eggleston’s situation with the WMC:
The Commission issued a Statement of Charges against Dr. Eggleston on August 3, 2022 concerning newspaper articles he wrote about COVID-19. ECF No. 17 at 7. Dr. Eggleston’s articles minimized deaths from the SARS-CoV-2 virus, incorrectly asserted that PCR tests for a COVID diagnosis are inaccurate, and falsely stated that COVID-19 vaccines and mRNA vaccines are harmful or ineffective and that ivermectin is a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19. See, e.g., ECF No. 20-2 at 4-21. A full and final hearing by the Commission has not been conducted at this time and no penalties have been imposed.
Nowhere in his discussion did Rice mention that once Eggleston had learned of the WMC’s investigation, he did not publish any further articles about COVID-19. In other words, the investigation in itself was coercion.
Continuing on the ripeness subject, Rice addressed the remaining plaintiffs:
Plaintiffs Stockton, Moynihan, and CHD’s and its members’ claims are also based on speculation and conjecture. The remaining Plaintiffs claim they are injured by the alleged chill of licensed physicians presenting an alternative narrative about COVID. But Plaintiffs have not shown that they are impeded from otherwise accessing this information, or that Drs. Eggleston and Siler’s speech has been or will likely be chilled by the Commission’s actions.
Plaintiffs’ claims are also prudentially unripe. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin nonfinal agency actions that are contingent upon future factual developments, and Plaintiffs have not otherwise established that hardship would result from the Court declining to exercise jurisdiction as those proceedings are ongoing.
Simply put, Rice is saying that it’s okay for the deep state of the WMC to harass and silence a medical practitioner for allegedly breaking a rule that they created until it’s time to become, as Victor Davis Hanson put it, “the judge of whether the targeted citizen has broken it.”
Rick Jaffe, who is arguing the case for CHD, provided ICWA with his thoughts on Rice’s dismissal:
The plan was always to present the case to the appellate court (and possibly even the Supreme Court). The only way to do that is to pass through the district court. We hope and expect the ninth circuit court of appeals to address the merits of the case, because of the importance of the First Amendment issue and the undeniable fact that the WMC is actively prosecuting physicians for their soap box speech.
Dr. Scott Jensen, who spoke at the CHD Bus Event in Spokane on April 19, is involved in similar proceedings where the Minnesota District Court has not dismissed the case, and where oral arguments are scheduled for August 6, 2024. The press release of the amended complaint was issued last Thursday and explains how his license to practice medicine in Minnesota was threatened six times over nearly three years including the entirety of his campaign for governor. His Amended Complaint alleges that the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice (BMP) conducted illegal investigations based solely on his public statements, none of which involved patient care or treatment. The Amended Complaint also alleges that the BMP has no jurisdiction to investigate and punish physicians’ public political speech, consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755 (2018), that “professional speech”—that of doctors, lawyers, nurses, and so on—on matters of public concern is entitled to the same protections as any other speech.
As for the First Amendment rights of free speech in the Stockton versus Ferguson case, it should be noted that former President Barack Obama nominated Rice to this federal judicial service in June 2011. Why is an Obama’s nomination of our Washington Federal judge notable? The following analysis by Seamus Bruner in his investigative book Controligarchs: Exposing the Billionaire Class, their Secret Deals, and the Globalist Plot to Dominate Your Life reveals where Obama stands on the First Amendment in a April 2022 speech at Stanford University:
About halfway through his speech, Obama said the quiet part out loud: the First Amendment is all but obsolete in today’s corporate-controlled information era. “[The First Amendment] doesn’t apply to private companies like Facebook or Twitter, any more than it applies to editorial decisions made by The New York Times or Fox News,” and “it never has,” Obama said. If the private media outlets and platforms could eliminate free speech irrespective of the First Amendment, the government would not need to censor, Obama argued. But in reality mounting evidence indicated that the Biden administration had been secretly leaning on media corporations to push propaganda, receive more “favorable” news coverage, and censor unapproved narratives.
Obama then emphasized private companies’ obligation to perform “content moderation” (a new Orwellian euphemism for mass censorship) and use their algorithms and other tools to “slow the spread” of bad content.
As for the First Amendment concerning COVID-19, Bruner wrote the following about the speech:
Obama lamented that misinformation was now so dangerous that it was killing people, because “despite the fact that we’ve now, essentially clinically tested the vaccine on billions of people worldwide, around 1 in 5 Americans is still willing to put themselves at risk and put their families at risk rather than get vaccinated.”
Dismissing any case related to medical freedom and damages from COVID-era restrictions has become a pattern for Judge Rice, effectively defending the government and not the people.
On March 18, 2024, Rice dismissed the case pursued by twelve Shriners Children’s Spokane employees against Governor Jay Inslee, as well as denying the motion to file an amended complaint. Shriners Spokane fired the twelve plaintiffs for refusing to take the COVID-19 shots.
Before that, Rice dismissed the case of former Washington State University Football Coach Nick Rolovich, who sued WSU Athletic Director Pat Chun and Governor Inslee. WSU had fired Rolovich in October 2021 after he filed a religious exemption to avoid taking the mandated COVID-19 shot.
KXLY.com reported the following about Rice’s decision:
"Even if Chun personally disagreed with Plaintiff’s reasons for not getting vaccinated and urged Plaintiff to comply with the Proclamation, his actions do not rise to a constitutional violation," Rice wrote in his decision.
Judge Rice also said the governor's proclamation offered Chun the ability to terminate Rolovich and said, “This Court and many others around the country have consistently found COVID-19 vaccine mandates for state employees are facially neutral and generally applicable, and terminating an employee for failing to comply with a vaccine mandate is a permissible employment action.”
Rice and other judges ignore or deliberately misinterpret EUA regulations that state individuals must be informed that use of an EUA is their option. In other words, cannot be mandated.
More opinion on Rice’s Rolovich decision: That kind of lazy thinking, convenient for Governor Inslee and public health agencies, is what Informed Choice Washington is trying to change. The most offensive aspect of the COVID emergency were the underlying reasons used to declare an emergency at all, and that illegal mandates to use EUA products were enforced.
Why can’t courts assess the validity of a health emergency? Or the veracity of claims of safety and efficacy? Why didn’t the Rolovich case lay bare the uselessness of a vaccine mandate when the product didn’t work and was by definition experimental? Please share your legal expertise and answer these questions in the comments.
*The Deep State tends to refer to the U.S. administrative state, while The Blob is emerging as a reference to the international administrative state, as discussed by Tucker Carlson and Mike Benz on February 16, 2024)
Digital Currency As a Threat to Medical Freedom
Last Thursday, the United States House of Representatives passed the CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act (H.R. 5403) by a 216-192 vote. This bill, which will prevent the Fed from creating a central bank digital currency and outlawing cash, now heads to the United States Senate for consideration.
So, how does this play into health freedom?
In a March 18, 2024 article in The Defender Catherine Austin Fitts, founder and publisher of the Solari Report and former US assistant secretary of housing and urban development said that CBDCs from the banks would lead to mandates, policies, and rules that could include “digital health passes” — sometimes referred to as “vaccine passports” — and climate change-related restrictions, including restrictions on transactions outside of the boundaries of so-called “15-minute cities.”
Fitts’s concerns about vaccine passports stem from a year ago when the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Commission together launched a “digital health partnership.”
The first two paragraphs in a June 6, 2023 article in The Defender provide some details:
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Commission — the executive branch of the European Union (EU) — on Monday launched a “landmark digital health partnership” marking the beginning of the WHO Global Digital Health Certification Network (GDHCN) to promote a global interoperable digital vaccine passport.
Beginning this month, the WHO will adopt the EU’s system of digital COVID-19 certification “to establish a global system that will help facilitate global mobility and protect citizens across the world from on-going and future health threats, including pandemics,” according to Monday’s announcements by the WHO and the European Commission.
Fitts, an outspoken critic of CBDCs, said they are “essential for the bankers to institute taxation without representation” and would allow “bankers to use AI [artificial intelligence] and software to institute a wide number of mandates, policies, rules and enforcement.”
In the March 18, 2024 article, Fitts stated another danger concerning CBDCs:
CBDCs also would allow bankers to significantly lower retirement benefits and government obligations and end property rights and achieve the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) promise to “own nothing and be happy,” Fitts said. And they would allow them “to assert complete control over travel and labor behavior.
Of the ten Washington legislators, seven of them would like their constituents to “own nothing and be happy.” All of them are Democrats: Suzan DelBene, Pramila Jayapal, Derek Kilmer, Rick Larsen, Kim Schrier, Adam Smith, and Marilyn Strickland.
One Democrat did vote for the CBDC anti-surveillance bill: Marie Gluesenkamp Perez from Washington’s third congressional district.
Both Washington Republicans—Dan Newhouse and Cathy McMorris Rodgers—voted for the CBDC anti-surveillance bill as well.
(You can also read from a new Washingtonian who is vehemently opposed to CBDC as well: You Can Stop Digital Currency Tyranny - by Diane L. Gruber (substack.com)
Protocol 7 Screening in Vancouver moved to June 12
Buy tickets here
What is Protocol 7?
Watch the trailer.
Protocol 7 is the true story about the corrupt practices of the vaccine industry. It’s time for the world to know—and for the corruption and harm to stop.
You can still host a screening in your area. ICWA activists will help explain the process.
CLICK HERE TO HOST THE PREMIERE IN YOUR TOWN
Pick the date/time works for you!
Facebook @Protocol7Movie | X @P7Movie | Instagram @Protocol7movie
Meme of the day:
There is no waiting to start your change in lifestyle.
