fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
SOURCE: http://www.thehealth…orn-taken-away/
___________________
Mother Who Questions Vax at Hospital Has Newborn Taken Away
by Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist on March 28, 2012
I am having a great deal of trouble typing this post. I am so upset and outraged over what was done to Jodi Ferris and her baby at the Penn State Hershey Medical Center in Pennsylvania shortly after she gave birth that I am having difficulty staying composed enough to write a coherent story.
If you recall, this is the same area of the state where officials allowed a serial child molester like Jerry Sandusky, former Penn State assistant football coach, to go free for decades and continue to abuse children unfortunate enough to come across his lecherous path while a mother who gives birth in a government hospital has her baby taken away for questioning whether vaccination with Hep B is truly necessary.
Does something seem very very wrong with this picture?
Jodi and Scott Ferris’ Story
Jodi had hoped to have a homebirth. After going into labor early and given the distance to the nearest hospital, Jodi and her husband Scott were advised by their midwife to call an ambulance and get to the hospital.
Jodi and Scott’s baby girl was born in the ambulance in the parking lot of Hershey Medical Center. Attending personnel at the government run facility took charge of “Annie” and Jodi very quickly.
Jodi was unable to see and hold Annie after the birth and hospital personnel were totally unresponsive when she continued to inquire about her newborn. Jodi was also given an injection of oxytocin without first being told what it was. Hospital personnel only inquired whether she was allergic after the injection was given.
Jodi’s persistent inquires about Annie continued to go unheeded. She was simply told that “she is in good hands and you’ll be able to see her soon”.
Finally, a doctor told Jodi that Annie had scored a 9 out of 10 on the APGAR test given to newborns which was very good considering that an 8 or above indicates a healthy child.
A short time later, a different doctor told Jodi that Annie was very sick and would need to stay in the hospital. This doctor also arrogantly indicated his dislike for midwives with the comment “too many people think they know what they’re doing”.
About an hour after being told Annie was very sick, Annie was finally brought to Jodi. She was told Annie was doing well and would be able to go home shortly.
Baby Detained at Hospital For No Medical Reason
A few hours later, the story changed yet again as another hospital staffer told Jodi and Scott that Annie would have to remain in the hospital for 48-72 hours for observation.
When they inquired why, they were told that the “law” required Annie to stay for at least 48 hours.
There is no such law in Pennsylvania, by the way.
After consulting with risk management about why Annie had to stay at the hospital, it was admitted that even though Annie was fine and there was no reason she couldn’t go home, she was being held prisoner at the hospital for 48-72 hours not for any health reasons but out of concern that if anything went wrong after Annie was discharged that the hospital might get sued.
Hospital risk management ultimately relented and said a 24 hour waiting period was sufficient and that Jodi and Scott could stay with their baby overnight.
A Parent’s Worst Nightmare Begins
Later that day, a social worker came to Jodi and Scott’s room and announced that she was going to conduct an investigation of them.
The social worker also claimed that it was “against the law” to show Jodi the allegations before she was questioned.
When Jodi resisted and said that she was not comfortable answering questions when she didn’t even know what was going on, the social worker threatened to call police and take custody of her baby.
It soon became apparent that the problem was Jodi and Scott’s apparent refusal to consent to medical treatments for Annie. The social worker claimed that she had refused the Vitamin K shot for Annie. Jodi said that no one had even asked her about the shot and that Annie had already been given the shot based on a conversation she overhead from hospital personnel.
The social worker was unable to provide a single example of necessary medical treatment that Jodi and Scott had refused.
Scott had to leave shortly after that as their older children were staying with friends and he had to go attend to them.
Hep B Vaccine Questioned
After Scott left, hospital staff demanded that Annie be given the Hepatitis B vaccine. Jodi said that would be fine if she and Annie were tested to see if they actually had Hep B first.
The social worker pressed Jodi to consent to the shot immediately even though no testing for Hep B could be done that day. Jodi asked if she could wait until Scott got back before a decision was made.
Once again, the social worker threatened to call police and take custody of Annie if Jodi did not make an immediate decision about the Hep B vaccine. She also pressed for Jodi to sign a “safety plan” so she could conclude her investigation.
Jodi said that she wanted her husband and an attorney present before she signed such a document as she felt that she was in no physical state to read and sign it at that time.
Annie Taken Into Police Custody
When the social worker could not pressure Jodi to sign the document, she went and called police.
With no court order, police took custody of Annie claiming she was ill which was completely false.
With Annie now in her custody, the social worker approved the Hep B vaccine for Annie, completely overruling the desires and wishes of her parents to have their baby tested for Hep B first before the vaccine was administered.
Then, the hospital kicked Jodi out of the hospital where she was told she could return every 3 hours to nurse Annie.
Scott rushed back to meet Jodi at the hospital entrance as she was being escorted out and with nowhere to go, they spent the night in the parking lot of the hospital, sleeping in the car while their baby was in the hands of police and social services inside the hospital.
Annie Finally Returned to Parents
No doubt exhausted and emotionally distraught, Jodi and Scott attended a shelter care hearing with a judicial officer the following morning.
After hearing the evidence, the officer immediately returned custody of Annie to her parents.
Parent Rights Being Eroded
The moral of this story is that government and hospital workers will lie about the health of your child and quickly violate your Constitutional Rights in order to to force medical treatment upon your children without your consent.
Jodi and Scott Ferris have bravely decided to take their case to court in order to put an end to this madness so no other parents ever have to endure the ordeal they suffered at Hershey Medical Center after the birth of Annie.
If this case moves you as it has me, please consider donating to the Homeschool Freedom Fund which will assist the Homeschool Legal Defense Association with the funds necessary to support Jodi and Scott’s case in court.
No social worker should be able to play God with someone else’s baby and get off on her own power making up “rules” and “laws” as she goes for her own convenience and personal satisfaction.
There is no doubt that this social worker’s intentions were entirely personal; she was aiming to teach these homeschooling, homebirthing parents a lesson they would never forget.
It’s high time a court of law draws a line in the sand once and for all to establish that parents and not the government have the ultimate right to determine both medical and educational decisions for their children.
There is no such thing as “your government family” as Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is so creepily fond of saying.
Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist
-
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD, has maintained for a very long time that Americans are not taxed at the same high levels as other western countries. Now it will happen with the health care reform act.
Here's a contradiction for you. SC rules health care reform act constitutional and those that don't comply will be subject to bills of attainder and penalties without judicial proceedings, which is unconstitutional.
Another contradiction, only congress can lay and collect taxes. An irs agent demanding that you pay more is unconstitutional
If its a tax, under congress's plenary taxing power, is it a direct tax, which must be apportioned, or an excise tax, which must be equal across the states. Irs discretion is not one of the constitutional rules of taxation.
-
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]EDITORIAL: We didn't write this. It was sent by a reader.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]______________________[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]COMMENTARY ON OBAMACARE SENT TO US BY A READER[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The health care bill is completely constitutional and legal and lawful as [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]interpreted by the SCOTUS. Congress can do whatever it wants to within its [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]district of social security benefit plantation and to the slaves within the [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]district and the 2-letter sub districts like TX. However the bill is not [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]a healthcare bill. It is one, a pretty sounding death sentence for older [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]slaves who do not produce anything, and it is two, simply another tax. [/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]I [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]think it is brilliant use of magik. Just like the FBI hostage rescue team [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]has NEVER rescued a hostage, but has killed about a hundred [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]of recalcitrant slaves who thought they had rights, the health care bill [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]will reduce health care to the 100 million baby boomers who, with proper [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]health care, would refuse to die on the schedule based upon 1935 actuarial [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]tables, and continue to refuse to release their hard earned assets back [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]into the commerce on the United States slave plantation trust. It is kind [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]of like a herd of dairy cows. The farmer tells his cows that if they [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]produce milk and babies for 5 years or so he will retire them to a fine [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]green pasture when they get too old and tired to produce milk and babies [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]anymore. Then when the day comes to take those older dutiful slave cows [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]out of service and take them over to the retirement pasture so they can [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]begin collecting their promised benefits, a fine looking 650 horsepower [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]long nose Pete with a 53 foot double deck trailer backs up to the cattle [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]chute; and the trailer is all painted up inside with blue roof and walls [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]and clouds and a sun and covered with astroturff© on the floor for the [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]ride over to the retirement pasture; and when the cows get to the [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]retirement pasture it turns out to be a recycling plant where a crew of [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Mexican NAFTA workers [ who, under the health care bill, because they do [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]not have a real social security number and remain sovereign, continue to [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]receive free health care without being required by public policy of the [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]United States communitarian welfare benefit slave plantation trust to pay [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]the tax because they do not actually “reside” on the benefit slave [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]plantation] are punching 1 inch diameter holes into the back of the heads [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]of those loyal slave cows. [/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Hmmm Can one really and truely trust the [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]master of a social security benefit slave plantation?? I think not. [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]However, I must write, I am truely enjoying this spectacular debacle. [/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]P. S.: You know what? This evening, I think I am going to check [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]if “Soylent Green” is available on ROKU.[/background]
-
Welcome to the Family Guardian forums. 🙂
The Law of Nations by Vattel is a classic. It has used as a resource on government for centuries. None of that book that we are aware of has been repealed or invalidated through the centuries. The founding fathers used it to write the constitution and even mentioned it in the Constitution. Even to this date, the U.S. Supreme Court continues to quote it so it must be valid. Look through U.S. Supreme rulings yourself and see. That's not our job to do it for you. You can read it here:
The Law of Nations
http://famguardian.o…ions/vattel.htm
However, you contradict yourself. First you say you want to give BACK to these forums, but the only thing you ever come here with is more questions and more slave labor from you, including your last post. When will something GIVEN without anything asked in return? That is measure of whether you really want to give back to these forums. We aren't your personal free research assistant, so for every question you post, you should feel an obligation to contribute one new resource, research, document, or answer an equally challenging questions by someone else. This is a partnership, not slavery. That is the only rational way that sovereigns can interact, and you ought to start practicing that philosophy in these forums, and later in the rest of your relations.
Quote:“For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.”[Luke 12:48, Bible, NKJV; SOURCE: http://www.biblegate…48&version=NKJV]
-
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Oh joy![/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]We get a KGB and Secret Police, just like China and the USSR.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]You can never enjoy too much tyranny.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Thank you Supreme Court.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Is this a great country, or what?[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]SCOTUS Ruling Means Bigger, More Intrusive IRS[/background]
http://www.foxbusine…-intrusive-irs/
-
True.
-
What court one can sue in depends upon WHO is being sued:
1. If it is a state official who personally and individually violated your rights, the standing would come from the Fourteenth Amendment and 31 USC 1983.
2. If you sue the state as a legal person, you must sue them in their own courts and the suit must be based on a waiver of sovereign immunity by the state, either express, in the form of a statute, or implied by virtue of “purposeful availment” of commerce outside their jurisdiction. The only place in federal court in which a state can be individually sued is in the U.S. Supreme Court. If you don't want to sue in federal court, then you must proceed in state court and produce a waiver of sovereign immunity as standing to sue.
The first of the above is covered in:
Section 1983 Litigation
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Liti…_Litigation.pdf
LITIGATION TOOLS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Liti…on/LitIndex.htm
-
That's “owner”, not “ower”. The document has been fixed and the fixe will appear in the next version of the document.
Thanks.
-
Amen, stija. Well said. 🙂
We might add that most so-called “rights” granted or created by any government legislation are and always have been privileges, or what the U.S. Supreme Court calls “public rights”, to distinguish them from natural or constitutional rights. The only exception to this rule is when the specific legislation mentions the constitution as its authority, in which case the right protected is ESCLUSIVELY PRIVATE rather than PUBLIC.
-
Stija,
Nice job. I don't know where the RFID is located.
-
Stija,
Fantastic! Could you please share with us your attachment and sanitize it to remove personal information. It may prove helpful to others and may also be used to improve the passport application attachment. Attach it to your post as either a word document or pdf.
Thanks!
-
SOURCE: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/us-leads-world-in-government-remova-requests/
__________________
US leads world in government removal requests to Google
US government official decries censorship of content, calls kettle black.
by Cyrus Farivar– June 18 2012, 9:50am PDT
The United States government leads the world in content removal requests to Google, as measured by specific items, according to the company’s latest transparency data report for the second half of 2011.
The data, which was released Monday, shows that American authorities requested over 3,800 items via court order. That's more than twice as many as the next country, Germany. Google says it complied with 40 percent of the American requests. In addition, over 2,300 items were requested from law enforcement or other means that did not involve a court order.
Interestingly, according to the Irish Times (reporting from this week’s Dublin Conference for Internet Freedom) Thomas Melia, deputy assistant secretary of state in the US Bureau of Democracy, told attendees that “too many governments were filtering, censoring content, taking down sites, and perpetuating Internet shutdowns.”
That’s particularly rich given that not only does the United States lead the pack in terms of government takedown requests to Google, but the country was famously behind the raid against Megaupload, the FBI's “Operation in Our Sites,” and the financial blockade against Wikileaks, among other controversial tactics.
Removal requests on the rise
Given that various governments have different standards with respect to freedom of expression, privacy, and other content standards, Google has found that governments, even Western governments, are asking the company to remove content for plainly political reasons.
“It’s alarming not only because free expression is at risk, but because some of these requests come from countries you might not suspect—Western democracies not typically associated with censorship,” wrote Dorothy Chou, a senior policy analyst, in a Sunday evening blog post.
“For example, in the second half of last year, Spanish regulators asked us to remove 270 search results that linked to blogs and articles in newspapers referencing individuals and public figures, including mayors and public prosecutors. In Poland, we received a request from a public institution to remove links to a site that criticized it. We didn’t comply with either of these requests.”
Jillian York, the director of international freedom of expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation said that this new data shows the increasing pressure from governments.
“This is particularly insidious because, in doing so, that content is not merely hidden behind a firewall but instead disappears entirely,” she wrote in an e-mail to Ars on Monday.
“Google's transparency is a good thing and other companies should follow in its footsteps, but transparency isn't always enough. Companies need to regularly evaluate their presence in certain countries and ensure that they're not complicit in human rights violations.”
Google will take down anti-Atatürk content, will keep passport flushing
Under its “Notes” section, Google pointed out that some countries are new to the takedown request party, including Bolivia, Czech Republic, Jordan, and Ukraine. India had a significant uptick in the number of takedown requests, up 49 percent. Meanwhile, both Turkey and Thailand asked for items to be taken down as they violated local laws against speaking out against Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (the founder of modern Turkey), and Bhumibol Adulyadej (King of Thailand), respectively.
But perhaps the best request was one from the Great White North.
“We received a request from the Passport Canada office to remove a YouTube video of a Canadian citizen urinating on his passport and flushing it down the toilet,” Google wrote. “We did not comply with this request.”
-
Quote:“An artificial being created by law and composed of individuals who subsist as a body politic under a special denomination with the capacity of perpetual succession and of acting within the scope of its charter as a natural person.”
[1839 Bouiver's Law Dictionary definition of corporation]
-
http://www.businessd…ral-person.html
Quote:“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”[1 Corinthians 2:14, Bible, NKJV]
-
NATURAL FOOL: http://famguardian.o…rs/bouviern.txt
If you describe yourself as a “natural person”, that implies that you are a without reasoning powers and a ward of the state. Don't describe yourself as a “natural person”. You can use “homo-sapien” or “man” or “woman”.
The natural world is “inrerum natur” and those in there are under God's Law.
______________________
Quote:NATURAL FOOL. An idiot; one born without the reasoning powers, or a capacity to acquire them.[Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856]