- Upfront disclosure: I am a maniac for the separation
of powers. At the founding of our nation, some limited powers were given
by the 13 states to the Federal government. They are very clearly listed
in the Constitution (e.g., the coining of money, the making of treaties,
the raising of an army). "Guarding the public's health" does
not happen to be one of the federal powers. It's not listed in the Constitution
of 1787, nor has it ever been added thereto by amendment. No amount of
legislation by Congress can alter that plain fact.
-
- So, please take my chat below about the National Childhood
Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, or my apparent going along with other crazy
federal nonsense, to be just that a 'going along with nonsense.'
Having made my statement about the unconstitutionality of federal involvement
in health, I shall not further argue it, turning instead to an exposition
of the Vaccine Court. (Actually, to be honest, the separation of powers
problem might slip back into the conversation, but the intent here is to
describe the 'law' as it stands. -- See? There I go with the innuendos!)
-
- THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789
-
- Because the Constitution assigned Congress the task,
or at least gave Congress the power, to "establish tribunals inferior
to the Supreme Court," a law was passed by the very first Congress
-- The Judiciary Act. It announced that federal district courts would come
into existence. The subject matter brought to those courts, whether civil
or criminal had, of course, to be of a federal nature. (Nope, you can't
trip me up; I'm not going to 'go there.')
-
- This proper legislative enactment, The Judiciary Act
of 1789, contains, in its original wording, some interesting points, such
as the requirement for clerks of court to take an oath "that I will
truly and faithfully enter and record all the orders, decrees, judgments
and proceedings of the said court," and furthermore get a load
of this: "the said clerks shall also severally give bond, with sufficient
suretiesto the United States, in the sum of two thousand dollars, faithfully
to discharge the duties of his office." Brilliant, no? (and two thousand
then would be like a krillion now).
-
- The Act also limited the jurisdiction of the district
court to lesser crimes, such as those for which "no other punishment
than whipping, not exceeding thirty stripes is to be inflicted."
-
- Interruption -- Islamic Law alert! Your humble writer
had recalled the basic phrase "not exceeding thirty stripes,"
but needed to get the exact quote from the Judiciary Act, so I put "not
exceeding 30 stripes" into the search engine, and lo and behold, up
came the 1979 text of Pakistan's Zina law which says: "Whoever attempts
to commit an offence punishable under this Ordinance, shall be punished
with whipping not exceeding thirty stripes." (Well, we all came from
the same seed, didn't we?)
-
- Over the next two centuries, Congress set up some additional
courts. For instance, today we have an immigration court and a bankruptcy
court. (Don't get me started on that latter one, but do listen to Sherman
Skolnick's yellings on the subject.) In 1986 we got the National Childhood
Vaccine Injury Compensation Court. It comes under the supervision of the
United States Court of Federal Claims.
-
- SUING FOR DAMAGES DUE TO NEGLIGENCE
-
- Normally a government does not allow itself to be sued
by anyone, although it may 'grant leave' for this to happen in a particular
case. That is, it may waive its sovereign immunity. As of 1948, Congress
decided to allow anyone to sue the United States in civil actions for torts,
if federal employees have been negligent (you slip on a banana peel sort
of thing). As published in the Code, at 28 USC 1346, you can sue "under
circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable
to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or
omission occurred."
-
- Yet in the vaccine saga, the person who does the neglecting
is not the government; it is the manufacturers of the vaccine, perhaps,
or the doctor or nurse who went a jab too far. The only way the feds got
to create this court was on the justification that the vaccine recipient,
that is, the jabee, was doing a public good. (Not to be immunized is to
run up the chances of getting a disease and spreading it to others?) So
those persons who suffered can ask for compensation in these special courts.
-
- Qualifications for an award are as follows:
- The claimant (technically called "the petitioner")
must be a child, not an adult.
- The injury must have occurred shortly after the jab (but
up to 30 days if paralytic polio).
- The claim must be filed within 36 months of injury.
- The court must rule on the case within 8 months.
-
- Unusual aspects of the litigation are as follows:
- 'Discovery' is not available (you can't subpoena your
opponent's records).
- Instead of judges, there are 'special masters,' appointed
for four-year renewable terms.
- Attorneys can be paid even if the case does not win.
(A lose-win situation for law firms!)
- The injured party can opt to reject an award (presumably
hoping for more $$); if he does, he's then allowed to sue manufacturers
in regular state court (state? did someone say 'state? Yay!)
-
- Payments are as follows:
- The average award as of 2010 was $822,000, the top award
being $4.9 million.
- The 'pain and suffering' component of the calculation
is capped at $250,000.
- All death cases are paid exactly $250,000. (This figure
is the same as it was in 1986.)
-
- Congress ordered that the claims be handled "quickly,
easily, and with certainty and generosity." The 'ease' comes from
the fact that no individual has to prove her case, provided she meets the
factors listed on the "Vaccine Table." Thus, many cases are for
a foregone conclusion. For example, if the injury sustained after a vaccination
is encephalopathy, chronic arthritis, paralytic polio, etc. (but not autism),
the case will be paid. If the child's injury is not shown on the Table,
she may yet prove vaccine causality 'on the balance of probabilities.'
-
- ENTER, THE AUTISM OMNIBUS TRIAL
-
- A great increase in the number of new autism diagnoses
in the US began around 1990. (At present it is more that 1 per 100 births.)
Many parents told their doctors that trouble started soon after the MMR
immunization (a combined injection of vaccines against measles, mumps and
rubella rubella is also called German measles). The immediate reaction
included such things as fever, listlessness, crying, and diarrhea; a further
reaction included standard symptoms of autism, such as loss of acquired
speech, social withdrawal, and self-harm.
-
- Since autism did not appear on the Vaccine Table, there
was no guarantee of payment. Persons wishing to pursue a claim had to prove
the causal link between the vaccination and the illness. By 2008, nearly
5000 families were saying that the MMR vaccine had caused their child to
have a developmental disorder along the "Autism Spectrum." The
court decided that it would combine all autism claims into one, calling
it the Omnibus Autism Proceedings.
-
- Remember these masters of the court are not physicians
or chemists, and yet their task now, since the Table could not be employed,
was to make a determination as to causality. They divided the Omnibus claims
into two groups. One group claimed that thimerosal, a preservative used
to give vaccines shelf life (i.e., to kill bacteria), was the culprit.
Another group claimed that it was specifically the mercury, within the
thimerosal, that was doing the damage.
-
- The result of all this, except for the Hannah Poling
case and some others that got quietly paid, was that the Omnibus claims
were defeated en masse. Three judges heard the first group by using "test
cases." The selected children in the first group were: Michelle Cedillo,
Colten Snyder, and Yates Hazlehurst. This test case lost, no 'causality'
having been found. The court had the gall to rebuke doctors for having
misled the parents!
-
- Two of those first three appealed to the Circuit Court
and lost. The second group had William Mead, Jordan King, and Colin Dwyer
as its representative children. That case lost and they did not appeal.
One thing that seems likely is that the attorneys would not have quite
the same get up and go that they'd have if their remuneration depended
on a win for the claimants! Another thing is that the parents probably
threw in the towel when they heard that the main expert witness physician
(opposing them) was not subjected to cross-examination.
-
-
- DHHS's 'CONCESSION' ABOUT MISS HANNAH POLING
-
- That said, it came to light that an autistic child named
Hannah Poling had received a $1.5 million payment. (Her case is No. 02-1166v,
2002 WL 1883059. Fed Cl April 10, 2008). The explanation the government
has provided is that her case, which was slated to be one in that first
group of test cases, had received a 'concession,' meaning that it was conceded
that the vaccine was the cause of her injury. The conceding entity was
the US Department of Health and Human Services.
-
- (Note: I have lived abroad for a along time and did not
realize that our Department of Health whose unconstitutionality I
have 'committed' not to mention -- and which verb I would never use intransitively
-- has added a phrase "and Human Services." What the Sam Hill
are human services? And why do we need the word 'human' there? Would anyone
think the 'Department of Health and Services' was referring to goat services?)
-
- Now then, if you know the judicial routine (that which
whistleblower Eustace Mullins aptly called "The Rape of Justice"),
you will be able to discern the meaning of the Poling concession. First
let's describe it. This lovely child, they said, had a pre-existing condition
something to do with mitochondria (but I believe anything would have
sufficed). The Department of HHS let's not spell it out, it irritates
me, just call it DHHS said that, yes, it was the thimerosal and what
it did was aggravate Hannah's condition.
-
- Hence the case does not 'open the floodgates' not
many children have that pre-existing condition. Let's look at the government
report (may we please just call it 'government report'? even the acronym
could make me go postal at the moment):
-
- "The facts of this case meet the statutory criteria
for demonstrating that the vaccinations the child received on July 19,
2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which
predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested
as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder."
-
- If I am correct, the wierdo's who like to get citizens
riled up went out of their way to say that although Hannah received 9 antigens
that day, it was the 3 in the MMR component that harmed her. They also
stated that she does have autism, not just the qualifying encephalopathy.
Yet the website of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program continues to
say: "HHS has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by
- vaccination."(See Mary Holland,"Unanswered
Questions" at digitalcommons.pace.edu.)
-
- OPINION
-
- Having thus far held my tongue, I now say that I am sure
the entire affair is a psy-op. Caveat: I do tend to say that about a lot
of things, and at times I say it recklessly -- though this is not one of
those times. A psy-op, that is, a 'psychological operation' is usually
designed to make everyone feel impotent and agitated. In this case it was
probably meant, additionally, to waste the parents' time if you can
in your wildest dreams imagine anyone being so mean as to do that to the
nation's most time-pressed families.
-
- Here are three more complaints (from our customer service
department, or our goat services, or whatever). First, there should never
have been a vaccine court. Shielding the pharmaceutical industry from liability
is plainly daft, not to say disgusting. One of the excuses given was that
if we didn't protect their bottom line one wants to say 'or their
bottoms,' but don't worry, one won't they would stop making vaccines
and we would be left with a dangerous situation.
-
- Second, even if a tribunal were needed, to cover a particular
problem, why abandon the principle of transparency? Just as I was sending
my book to press, "Prosecution for Treason: Weather War, Epidemics,
and Mind Control," I got nervous about the fact that, on page 40,
I had retailed Dr Andrew Wakefield's remark that there are 'secret' vaccine
courts in the US. Naturally I should not report things second-hand like
that. I should have checked. But I was down to the wire, so I let it go.
Turns out he was right; the vaccine court is secretive indeed.
-
- Third, no amount of payment will 'compensate' the child.
What an awful word! But then, as I have hinted elsewhere, I strongly suspect
autism is intentional, part of a big war against the people. (I am certain
that the military deliberately harms our soldiers, including via injections.)
-
- So the goings-on in the Claims Court are not what we
should be concentrating on. As far as identifying the baddies, however,
some people associated with the courts, and also with the goats, need to
be interrogated. Pronto.
-
-
- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-
- Mary W Maxwell, PhD, can be contacted at credosbooks.com,
which is a blog page run by her wonderful publisher Trineday.
|
