Grotesquely incompetent Judge won’t suspend mandatory vaccination

Grotesquely incompetent judge won’t suspend mandatory vaccination

“Hey, let’s just make up stuff in court, it’s a party.”

by Jon Rappoport

August 27, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

I’ll keep this as simple as I can.

The infamous SB277, passed into CA law in 2015, made vaccines mandatory for school children in the state.

Last month, a lawsuit was filed, with the purpose of overturning the law. The lawyers asked Federal Judge Dana Sabraw to keep the law from going into effect while the case moves forward.

Sabraw just said no.

Among the reasons he cited for his decision (LA Times, 8/26): “U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw in San Diego wrote that state Legislatures have ‘a long history of requiring children to be vaccinated as a condition to school enrollment, and for as many years, both state and federal courts have upheld those requirements against constitutional challenge’.”

I don’t see how Judge Sabraw’s opinion could be more ridiculous. Or ludicrous. Or incompetent. Or wrong.

Why? Because ‘the long history’ he refers to is quite different.

The states have always upheld exemptions from vaccination on several grounds: medical waiver, religious objection, philosophical objection. THAT’S the tradition.

SB277 goes against the tradition, to say the very least. SB277 breaks new ground in allowing the state to operate as a medical fascist in the area of vaccinations.

Under SB277, a parent’s only option, aside from a hard-to-obtain medical exemption, is to home school her child. And obviously, not all parents can afford to exercise that option, because they have to work to pay the bills.

From what source is Judge Sabraw getting his information about “long history” and tradition? From a CDC PR pamphlet? From a drug company? From aliens on the moon?

His considered opinion in this case is on the order of saying, “Look, all states have always had strict rules about crossing the street on Thursdays. You can’t do it or you’re breaking the law.”

Maybe the Judge just decided to make up his version of history out of thin air.

Actually, it appears he did that in a prior case. The issue there centered on what lawyers can and can’t say during their closing arguments. They can’t go off and say anything. They definitely can’t refer to “facts” that were never presented during the trial. They can’t just make stuff up.

The website,, has the story. Joe Patrice colorfully writes:

“The case arose in 2010, when a guy was stopped by border agents and Skippy the Wonder Dog managed to uncover 112 sealed packages weighing 321.33 pounds (or 146.06 kilograms if you’re Canadian or otherwise a Communist) of marijuana. The defendant claimed he was set up. In the government’s rebuttal closing, the prosecutor, Steve Miller, pulled some Hocus Pocus and started telling the jury about a number of reasons why the defendant’s story couldn’t be believed. That would be par for the course, except none of these ‘facts’ were brought out during the trial itself.

“When defense counsel objected, Judge Dana M. Sabraw responded ‘with the admonition that this is counsel’s argument, it is up to the jury to determine the facts.’ Stellar judging. I wish I’d known about the “you can assert whatever you want in closing because it’s ‘up to the jury to determine facts’” rule.”

Exit From the Matrix

Yes, let’s just invent the law as we go along. Make up the law out of thin air. Make up tradition and history out of thin air. Make up whatever you need to make up, in order to deny the people of California a fair hearing on a fascist law that forces them to vaccinate their children with the full CDC load of toxic chemicals and germs.

Well, the rabid pro-vaccine forces have their Judge. He’s perfect.

His bias, even before the lawsuit has gotten off the ground, is sufficient reason for him to recuse himself.

“I’m stepping away. I was making up history out of nothing. Let another Judge take over who actually knows a little about the past.”

Get Sabraw out of there. He’s doing fiction.

Bad fiction.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

8 comments on “Grotesquely incompetent Judge won’t suspend mandatory vaccination

  1. Brian K says:

    Is the judge incompetent, or just bought and paid for? The bright side of this monstrous law is that it might force some parents to homeschool their children, thus depriving the government indoctrination centers of some victims.

  2. Jon Syfer says:

    What does anyone expect? Its not like there is a democracy in the US. Regarding this topic judges are either worried about their jobs, or they are bought off (or both). I don’t expect the actual outcome of the lawsuit to be any different.

  3. This kind of thing could probably be avoided if people would dare to use the reverse religious argument, as I explain in this blog
    School admission can never be made dependent on whether or not a child has been submitted to a religious ritual.

    With this kind of argument you put the ball squarely in the court of the pro-vaxxers. They will have to prove that vaccines are more than a belief system. And they can’t. So no matter what, you will always win a case. Even if you lose the case, then still the judge will have to admit that it’s nothing but a belief system, which will be registered in the court archives.

    I’m still waiting for the first person to use this argument. For some reason nobody dares to do it. And I’m not forced to get any vaccinations, so I can’t do it myself.

  4. nuissancefactor says:

    Is public school even Constitutional? How about homework? Could forcing people to let a third party inject their children with harmful substances be a psy-op to see just how far people will let THEM violate us? […]

    • Terri says:

      Public school is not constitutional. Neither are the rest of the agencies that have been formed. if the people wont educate themselves and demand their public servants including judges uphold their oath to the constitution and only pass and enforce laws that are compliant with the constitution, than the point is moot.

      Public school and other such things are part of the 10 planks of communism or the communist manifesto. People have said the john birch society is a bunch of extremists but they have been warning against the communist takeover, which has already happened, for well over 50 years. there are many links, but here is one.

      No one has the right to force any medical treatment upon anyone. They are bullies and they will continue to push their agenda until they are stopped, just like any bully. This is why obama, bush and others hate the constitution. It ties their hands from implementing a full blown fascist-globalist-collectivist society. Its the only thing standing between those who choose freedom/responsibility and the idiot masses and their masters.

  5. nwqfk says:

    The entire reason that states have informed consent in the first place a.k.a vaccine NON medical exemptions (for ANY reason) stems from the 1905 Supreme Court ruling on ‘police powers’ of ‘mandating’ (forcing) vaccines and other medical treatments by the state,

    While the Supreme Court said ‘police powers’ were NOT ‘unconstitutional’ for the state to mandate vaccines, the Supreme Court was emphatic and concise that those ‘powers’ given to the state to mandate vaccines were to be ‘greatly restricted; to health emergency situations only.

    The Supreme Court made it very clear in their ruling that ‘police powers’ for administrative purposes or nature was strictly ‘prohibited’. SB277 and Mississippi’s mandatory vaccine laws both violate the 1905 Supreme Court ruling because both states are mandating vaccines to simply ‘comply’ with CDC vaccine schedule ‘recommendations’. There is NO emergency health situation to warrant the vaccine mandate, and the mandate is ‘administrative’ in nature.

    I discovered this reading a ‘pro vaccine’ (of all things) Harvard Law review of the 1905 Supreme Court ruling as to answer the question of the origins of state’s right to informed consent laws.

    The Harvard Law review concurred that the state ONLY has police powers to mandate vaccines under what would amount to a real health crisis and can NOT be used administratively, or as a matter of ‘policy’.

  6. Greg C. says:

    A judge is supposed to be an arbiter of truthful testimony, but the role of the federal judge has morphed into one of an upholder of key principles, such as public safety, mass equality, scientific consensus, etc. The principles themselves need not depend on anything truthful – they stand above the truth. Beware the man of principle.

  7. Someone needs to apprise, Time editor, Jeffrey Kluger, someone who wants Facebook to take down and prosecute the “anti vaxxers” Oh, wait, isn’t he the guy who wrote Splendid Solution” Jonas Salk and the Conquest of Polio?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.