I am fighting one now for incompetence for awkwardly telling a patient the truth about COVID 19 in 2021 - incidence, propaganda, and hospital fraud. In the complaint response they said I argued conspiracy theories, yet the so-called conspiracies all turned out to be true (incidence #'s were far lower than perceived, BBC is not a valid source of information, Hospitals committed ventilator abuse).
The corruption of the medical industry is astounding. So is the lack of courage and integrity by a significant percentage of doctors for sheepishly allowing these disgraceful attacks to continue. If only 10% of all doctors rose up and opposed this corruption loudly, it would end. The public outcry would protect them.
Canada, Australia and NZ are deep in the mass-formation as they are embracing eugenics on a expanded scale - truly evil behavior - all three countries have truly ignorant, communist leaders. Covid is a military operation and has nothing to do with public health: https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/p/legal-walls-short-version?s=w
What a coincidence. Yesterday, I filed a petition for a writ of mandate for one of the LAUSD teachers who was fired for unprofessional conduct. What was it? Molesting children? Selling drugs on campus? No. He refused to comply with LAUSD's unlawful vaccine mandate, and because state law only allows tenured teachers to be fired for limited reasons listed in the Education Code, the accusation against him couldn't say he was fired for refusing to comply with the unlawful vaccination mandate.
That is why a teacher with 14 years of unblemished service was was accused of unprofessional conduct and fired on that basis. ILLEGALLY FIRED. The US Constitution -------
---- and now a brief warning: BEWARE of the push for a Constitutional Convention -- the same evil people trained by the WEF and other such One World groups are just salivating about being able to enshrine their goals in the rock that protects us who've invaded our country -------
----the Constitution, its Fourteenth Amendment, says all people cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without DUE PROCESS (fair procedures), and tenured teachers, and anyone who has passed a state's probationary procedures to obtain a license of any kind, has a property interest, and the license cannot be revoked without DUE PROCESS.
I'm going to share the petition I just filed with an e-mail group of attorneys who are dealing with the fallout from these ILLEGAL VACCINE MANDATES. It has the legal arguments about why here was no connection between the language of the Education Code sections on unprofessional conduct and what this teacher did.
I don't think copying and pasting it into this comment section would work, so if Dr. Nass wants to contact me, so I can e-mail it to her to figure out a good way to share it, I'll do that. I'm going to share this current post from Dr. Nass with my client, too, and ask him to share it with other wrongfully fired LAUSD employees.
Meanwhile, the evildoers' plan seems to be to bring on MORE "public health emergencies" in order to continue the takeover of America; California Governor Newsom is already set, with his SMART Plan (S is for "Shots" M is for "") which includes on-the-ground snoops and enforcers. That means that MORE people need to have the guts to band together and JUST SAY NO to shots, masks and testing!
In 2021, at the request of a friend, I developed two letters that school district employees could use to turn in, as a group, to their HR departments when they were threatened with being fired if they didn't vaxx, test and mask (after their union threw them under the CDC vaccine bus, possibly because upper union officials MIGHT have been bribed to do so; who knows?). If a decent-sized group of a district's employees (about 10 percent) all banded together and turned in the same letters, saying we will not vaxx, mask OR test, and we are NOT going to quit or resign, districts COULD NOT FIRE THEM, because the districts could not run in the absence of those employees -- which meant the HR and other ruling employees would end up out of work, too.
At last word, at least nine little school district employees pulled this grassroots coup off in 2021 -- and what happened after that I don't know, because all I did was give one group of employees the info in a distributable format and it spread. Remember Solidarity, the Polish group that defeated communist rule there? Same idea. Groups of people who know each other need to band together to refuse to comply,
This is terrifying because what they are really doing is trying to shut down any doctor who practices traditional, natural, or homeopathic medicine. If you aren't selling for big pharma and big insurance you're screwed. Not only are they hunting them for what they prescribe and say they are also hunting them if they don't play the excessive paper-work game. The physicians who want to give you more than 5 minutes of their time have to go outside of insurance networks, making them cost-prohibitive for most people. Luckily I have the resources, but it irks me that the government has forced us onto expensive insurance plans that only pay out for 5 minute visits and a pill. How do we get back to wellness and practitioners that see people they want to heal instead of a pay-day? I think it goes back to the pipeline of medical school that shills for pharma, makes learning too expensive, encourages memorizers and regurgitators (I've done UX work with doctors; most lack creative or intuitive thinking skills) and selects for self-righteous arrogant predators looking for cash.
Here, the issue is likewise purely legal, unrelated to any facts: did LAUSD comply with the State’s proscribed statutory requirements in section 35160 so as to adopt a valid vaccination policy? It did not.
The Policy Here, Not Created in Compliance with Section 35160, Is Null and Void
The Policy Was Not Adopted by LAUSD’s Governing Board
A policy or regulation adopted in a way not authorized by the controlling authority is null and void. This general principle was clearly stated by the Judicial Council of California when it amended the Rules of Court and preempted all local rules related to civil procedure, including the allowed form and format of all papers. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Title 3, Civil Rules, Rule 3.20 (a) [“All local rules concerning [civil procedure] are null and void unless otherwise permitted or required by a statute or rule in the California Rules of Court”].)
The same principle applies here, that the law of a controlling authority (the State of California) preempts any conflicting law of a lesser authority (a school district). In adopting Education Code section 35160, the State of California made it clear that only a school district’s governing board – not mere district employees or officers – could adopt rules and policies for a school district, and that any other policy or rule not adopted as required by section 35160 is preempted, and therefore null and void. (See, e.g., DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 773 (1995) [a County’s zoning ordinances are subordinate to and must be consistent with its General Plan, so a conflicting ordinance is invalid at the time it is passed]; Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 544 [“the preemptive effect of [a] controlling state statute, . . . invalidates [a conflicting subordinate law or rule] . . .[¶] A void statute or ordinance [or school policy] cannot be given effect”].)
LAUSD failed to present any evidence that Exhibit 18, the Memo containing LAUSD’s COVID Vaccination Policy, was ever adopted by LAUSD’s governing Board. Therefore, such --Policy was not in compliance with the statutory scheme of section 35000, it was null and void from the moment it was typed up and distributed, i.e., ab initio (see, e.g., DeVita v. County of Napa, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 773), and could not form a lawful basis for demanding that any LAUSD employee, including Petitioner, comply with any of such Policy’s requirements, including, but not limited to, being vaccinated, or submitting exemption requests, or accepting any accommodations related to such exemptions.
Here's the legal argument I just used for a tenured teacher who was fired for "unprofessional conduct" for refusing to comply with these illegal vaxx mandates. The argument is that his firing was improper for three reasons: (1) the school board never lawfully adopted its internal vaxx policy; (2) even if it had tried to do so, its vaxx policy was in conflict with a controlling law, California's Health & Safety Code, sections 24170 et seq. (which codified the Nuremberg Code as part of California's law back in 1978), and (3) it's a violation of a person's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights to deprive anyone of a vested property interest, like a license, in the absence of relevant law and evidence.
Here's a cut and paste of that section of the legal argument in my petition (hope it's okay to do this!!!): (just got a message comments need to be shorter so I'll paste it bit by bit in separate comments).
More of same legal argument against revoking licenses based on BS unproffesional conduct accusation:
Commission’s Decision, Unsupported by Evidence or Law,
Violates Petitioner’s Fourteenth Amendment Rights
Tenured public school teachers have a property interest in their jobs, and therefore have a constitutional right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment (U.S. Const. amend. XIV). (Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972).) Because tenured teachers are entitled to due process, this means that they cannot be deprived of their employment in the absence of evidence to support such deprivation. (Id.)
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U. S. 532 (1985), a case involving a tenured teacher facing dismissal, is the leading case involving the question of what process is due under the Constitution. This case provides that tenured teachers, who have a property interest in continued employment, have a Fourteenth Amendment, due process right to be given oral or written notice of the dismissal and the charges against them, an explanation of the employers’ evidence, and an opportunity for a fair and meaningful hearing.
The Loudermill Court, given the posture of the case before it, was not called upon to hold that whatever decision was reached in such cases must be based on facts and law. But the very nature of what is “fair” – the spirit behind the concept of “due process” – must also mean that no one can be deprived of life, liberty or property in the absence of both applicable evidence and law, which is exactly what happened to Petitioner. (See, e.g., Schwarre v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 246-247 (1960) [evidence insufficient to rationally justify a lower court’s finding related to a litigant’s right to practice law violates due process].)
Here, Petitioner was not only deprived of his career and his means of support in the absence of any real evidence of unfitness or incompetence as a teacher, and on the basis of a null and void Policy never properly adopted by LAUSD’s governing board, but his reputation was also besmirched by having the statutory language of the charges against him – which had been used because the Education Code does not allow tenured teachers to be fired for refusing to be vaccinated – made part of a record against him, a record that will damn him for the rest of his life if Commission’s Decision is not reversed.
What began as Petitioner’s simple exercise of his lawful right to refuse to participate in a medical experiment was turned by LAUSD into the modern equivalent of a Kafkaesque show trial. Petitioner’s simple action of lawfully declining an unwanted medical procedure was confabulated into insulting assertions of statutory-language-based accusations that bear little resemblance to what he had actually done. His exercise of his lawful right to not be vaccinated, and to not be asked to violate the Education Code (by teaching outside his credential without a proper waiver) was contorted into evidence unfitness for service (§ 44932, subd. (a)(6)); persistent violation of, or refusal to obey, the “school laws,” i.e., the null and void vaccination Policy (§ 44932, subd. (a)(8)); and “willful refusal to perform regular assignments without reasonable cause, as described by reasonable rules and regulations of the employing district.” (§44939). (See Petitioner’s Exhibits in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate, Exhibit 9, “Amended Accusation”; AR: 98-98.)
This is part of legal arguments useable by people whose licenses are taken using BS claims of unprofesional conduct: Scope of Judicial Review
The scope of judicial review in a particular context is not measured by generalities, but rather the “proper scope of a court’s review is determined by the task before it.’” (Woods v. Superior Court (1981) 28 Cal.3d 668, 679.) The task presented by this appeal is to decide, as a matter of law, whether LAUSD’s governing board complied with the statutory scheme for adopting regulations and policies, so that it had adopted a legally enforceable vaccination policy that then permitted the lawful dismissal of Petitioner.
The task of deciding such question “in turn is usually determined by a statutory system which indicates the scope of both agency and judicial function.” (Poverty Resistance Center v. Hart (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 295, 303 [“Poverty”].) 1 Whether an agency has stayed within the boundaries set by the statutory scheme “present[s] questions of law for the court.” (Poverty, supra, at p. 305, citing Mooney v. Pickett (1972) 4 Cal.3d 669, 681.) Here, the statutory scheme that LAUSD was required to follow was the Education Code section that provided the governing boards of public school districts with the power to adopt policies and regulations necessary to operate schools for the purpose for which they are intended. (§ 35160)
When a governing board does not comply with a statutory mandate, any resulting decision based on such failure must be set aside. (Poverty, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at 299.) In Poverty, the County of Sacramento’s Board of Supervisors set levels of general relief for county residents, but failed to comply with the controlling state code sections, which mandated standards of the general relief that were to be distributed by each California County.
When the Poverty Resistance Center and individual recipients of general assistance sued, charging that the County had breached the statutory duties imposed upon it by Welfare and Institutions Code sections 17000 and 17001, they lost at trial, but on review, the appellate court held that that the County’s governing board, the Board of Supervisors, had not complied with the statutory mandate and reverse the judgment, because the County had failed to comply with the statutory scheme.
This – what was relevant in Poverty – was not the actual level of aid that Sacramento County had set, but rather “the lawfulness of the Board’s action in setting the standard of aid which is under review.” (Id., at 203 Cal.App.3rd 302.) In turn, “the statutes which govern the agency action” determine whether the agency – in that case, Sacramento County’s Board of Supervisors – acted lawfully. (Id.)
They have been doing witch hunts on doctors for as long as I've been alive, 69 years at least. Because nobody (the public) was paying attention, nobody had a sense of ethics, nobody had foundational concepts in healing, health nor of alternative medicine many practitioners and their families have suffered over the years, as well as all of the patients they might have treated. We now reap the rewards of ignorance, complacency and corruption.
This is sick. Hippocratic Oath is gone. So is Informed Consent. Dr Phillips took the normal, required step of informing patients of the data he had seen. Instead of doing the immoral, sleazy thing by hiding the truth. Allowing the most important person in the room, his esteemed patient, to make an informed decision. No coercion was ever deemed to have happened on his part.
When our Dr-patient relationship is destroyed by TPTB, several very sequelae occur:
1. Health practitioners will no longer be guided by the informed consent requirement, and some bad actors could harm patients who would have declined treatments
2. The right to decline treatment disappears into a vacuous, nebulous world in which government or Dr dictates make one’s decision by coercion.
There are other harms; i invite you as patients and practitioners to add to this incomplete list.
I am fighting one now for incompetence for awkwardly telling a patient the truth about COVID 19 in 2021 - incidence, propaganda, and hospital fraud. In the complaint response they said I argued conspiracy theories, yet the so-called conspiracies all turned out to be true (incidence #'s were far lower than perceived, BBC is not a valid source of information, Hospitals committed ventilator abuse).
The corruption of the medical industry is astounding. So is the lack of courage and integrity by a significant percentage of doctors for sheepishly allowing these disgraceful attacks to continue. If only 10% of all doctors rose up and opposed this corruption loudly, it would end. The public outcry would protect them.
Thank you Dr. Nass
Canada, Australia and NZ are deep in the mass-formation as they are embracing eugenics on a expanded scale - truly evil behavior - all three countries have truly ignorant, communist leaders. Covid is a military operation and has nothing to do with public health: https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/p/legal-walls-short-version?s=w
Peace.
What a coincidence. Yesterday, I filed a petition for a writ of mandate for one of the LAUSD teachers who was fired for unprofessional conduct. What was it? Molesting children? Selling drugs on campus? No. He refused to comply with LAUSD's unlawful vaccine mandate, and because state law only allows tenured teachers to be fired for limited reasons listed in the Education Code, the accusation against him couldn't say he was fired for refusing to comply with the unlawful vaccination mandate.
That is why a teacher with 14 years of unblemished service was was accused of unprofessional conduct and fired on that basis. ILLEGALLY FIRED. The US Constitution -------
---- and now a brief warning: BEWARE of the push for a Constitutional Convention -- the same evil people trained by the WEF and other such One World groups are just salivating about being able to enshrine their goals in the rock that protects us who've invaded our country -------
----the Constitution, its Fourteenth Amendment, says all people cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without DUE PROCESS (fair procedures), and tenured teachers, and anyone who has passed a state's probationary procedures to obtain a license of any kind, has a property interest, and the license cannot be revoked without DUE PROCESS.
I'm going to share the petition I just filed with an e-mail group of attorneys who are dealing with the fallout from these ILLEGAL VACCINE MANDATES. It has the legal arguments about why here was no connection between the language of the Education Code sections on unprofessional conduct and what this teacher did.
I don't think copying and pasting it into this comment section would work, so if Dr. Nass wants to contact me, so I can e-mail it to her to figure out a good way to share it, I'll do that. I'm going to share this current post from Dr. Nass with my client, too, and ask him to share it with other wrongfully fired LAUSD employees.
Meanwhile, the evildoers' plan seems to be to bring on MORE "public health emergencies" in order to continue the takeover of America; California Governor Newsom is already set, with his SMART Plan (S is for "Shots" M is for "") which includes on-the-ground snoops and enforcers. That means that MORE people need to have the guts to band together and JUST SAY NO to shots, masks and testing!
In 2021, at the request of a friend, I developed two letters that school district employees could use to turn in, as a group, to their HR departments when they were threatened with being fired if they didn't vaxx, test and mask (after their union threw them under the CDC vaccine bus, possibly because upper union officials MIGHT have been bribed to do so; who knows?). If a decent-sized group of a district's employees (about 10 percent) all banded together and turned in the same letters, saying we will not vaxx, mask OR test, and we are NOT going to quit or resign, districts COULD NOT FIRE THEM, because the districts could not run in the absence of those employees -- which meant the HR and other ruling employees would end up out of work, too.
At last word, at least nine little school district employees pulled this grassroots coup off in 2021 -- and what happened after that I don't know, because all I did was give one group of employees the info in a distributable format and it spread. Remember Solidarity, the Polish group that defeated communist rule there? Same idea. Groups of people who know each other need to band together to refuse to comply,
This is terrifying because what they are really doing is trying to shut down any doctor who practices traditional, natural, or homeopathic medicine. If you aren't selling for big pharma and big insurance you're screwed. Not only are they hunting them for what they prescribe and say they are also hunting them if they don't play the excessive paper-work game. The physicians who want to give you more than 5 minutes of their time have to go outside of insurance networks, making them cost-prohibitive for most people. Luckily I have the resources, but it irks me that the government has forced us onto expensive insurance plans that only pay out for 5 minute visits and a pill. How do we get back to wellness and practitioners that see people they want to heal instead of a pay-day? I think it goes back to the pipeline of medical school that shills for pharma, makes learning too expensive, encourages memorizers and regurgitators (I've done UX work with doctors; most lack creative or intuitive thinking skills) and selects for self-righteous arrogant predators looking for cash.
I have direct messaged your link to Dr. Philips through Twitter. Best wishes to you.
Suspension or permanent suspension of a medical license in Japan is limited to (1) serious criminal offenses and (2) large sums of money fraud.
Canada and the USA have become less developed countries than Japan and most Western European countries. I think it's a sad country.
Here, the issue is likewise purely legal, unrelated to any facts: did LAUSD comply with the State’s proscribed statutory requirements in section 35160 so as to adopt a valid vaccination policy? It did not.
The Policy Here, Not Created in Compliance with Section 35160, Is Null and Void
The Policy Was Not Adopted by LAUSD’s Governing Board
A policy or regulation adopted in a way not authorized by the controlling authority is null and void. This general principle was clearly stated by the Judicial Council of California when it amended the Rules of Court and preempted all local rules related to civil procedure, including the allowed form and format of all papers. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Title 3, Civil Rules, Rule 3.20 (a) [“All local rules concerning [civil procedure] are null and void unless otherwise permitted or required by a statute or rule in the California Rules of Court”].)
The same principle applies here, that the law of a controlling authority (the State of California) preempts any conflicting law of a lesser authority (a school district). In adopting Education Code section 35160, the State of California made it clear that only a school district’s governing board – not mere district employees or officers – could adopt rules and policies for a school district, and that any other policy or rule not adopted as required by section 35160 is preempted, and therefore null and void. (See, e.g., DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 773 (1995) [a County’s zoning ordinances are subordinate to and must be consistent with its General Plan, so a conflicting ordinance is invalid at the time it is passed]; Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 544 [“the preemptive effect of [a] controlling state statute, . . . invalidates [a conflicting subordinate law or rule] . . .[¶] A void statute or ordinance [or school policy] cannot be given effect”].)
LAUSD failed to present any evidence that Exhibit 18, the Memo containing LAUSD’s COVID Vaccination Policy, was ever adopted by LAUSD’s governing Board. Therefore, such --Policy was not in compliance with the statutory scheme of section 35000, it was null and void from the moment it was typed up and distributed, i.e., ab initio (see, e.g., DeVita v. County of Napa, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 773), and could not form a lawful basis for demanding that any LAUSD employee, including Petitioner, comply with any of such Policy’s requirements, including, but not limited to, being vaccinated, or submitting exemption requests, or accepting any accommodations related to such exemptions.
Here's the legal argument I just used for a tenured teacher who was fired for "unprofessional conduct" for refusing to comply with these illegal vaxx mandates. The argument is that his firing was improper for three reasons: (1) the school board never lawfully adopted its internal vaxx policy; (2) even if it had tried to do so, its vaxx policy was in conflict with a controlling law, California's Health & Safety Code, sections 24170 et seq. (which codified the Nuremberg Code as part of California's law back in 1978), and (3) it's a violation of a person's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights to deprive anyone of a vested property interest, like a license, in the absence of relevant law and evidence.
Here's a cut and paste of that section of the legal argument in my petition (hope it's okay to do this!!!): (just got a message comments need to be shorter so I'll paste it bit by bit in separate comments).
More of same legal argument against revoking licenses based on BS unproffesional conduct accusation:
Commission’s Decision, Unsupported by Evidence or Law,
Violates Petitioner’s Fourteenth Amendment Rights
Tenured public school teachers have a property interest in their jobs, and therefore have a constitutional right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment (U.S. Const. amend. XIV). (Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972).) Because tenured teachers are entitled to due process, this means that they cannot be deprived of their employment in the absence of evidence to support such deprivation. (Id.)
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U. S. 532 (1985), a case involving a tenured teacher facing dismissal, is the leading case involving the question of what process is due under the Constitution. This case provides that tenured teachers, who have a property interest in continued employment, have a Fourteenth Amendment, due process right to be given oral or written notice of the dismissal and the charges against them, an explanation of the employers’ evidence, and an opportunity for a fair and meaningful hearing.
The Loudermill Court, given the posture of the case before it, was not called upon to hold that whatever decision was reached in such cases must be based on facts and law. But the very nature of what is “fair” – the spirit behind the concept of “due process” – must also mean that no one can be deprived of life, liberty or property in the absence of both applicable evidence and law, which is exactly what happened to Petitioner. (See, e.g., Schwarre v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 246-247 (1960) [evidence insufficient to rationally justify a lower court’s finding related to a litigant’s right to practice law violates due process].)
Here, Petitioner was not only deprived of his career and his means of support in the absence of any real evidence of unfitness or incompetence as a teacher, and on the basis of a null and void Policy never properly adopted by LAUSD’s governing board, but his reputation was also besmirched by having the statutory language of the charges against him – which had been used because the Education Code does not allow tenured teachers to be fired for refusing to be vaccinated – made part of a record against him, a record that will damn him for the rest of his life if Commission’s Decision is not reversed.
What began as Petitioner’s simple exercise of his lawful right to refuse to participate in a medical experiment was turned by LAUSD into the modern equivalent of a Kafkaesque show trial. Petitioner’s simple action of lawfully declining an unwanted medical procedure was confabulated into insulting assertions of statutory-language-based accusations that bear little resemblance to what he had actually done. His exercise of his lawful right to not be vaccinated, and to not be asked to violate the Education Code (by teaching outside his credential without a proper waiver) was contorted into evidence unfitness for service (§ 44932, subd. (a)(6)); persistent violation of, or refusal to obey, the “school laws,” i.e., the null and void vaccination Policy (§ 44932, subd. (a)(8)); and “willful refusal to perform regular assignments without reasonable cause, as described by reasonable rules and regulations of the employing district.” (§44939). (See Petitioner’s Exhibits in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate, Exhibit 9, “Amended Accusation”; AR: 98-98.)
This is part of legal arguments useable by people whose licenses are taken using BS claims of unprofesional conduct: Scope of Judicial Review
The scope of judicial review in a particular context is not measured by generalities, but rather the “proper scope of a court’s review is determined by the task before it.’” (Woods v. Superior Court (1981) 28 Cal.3d 668, 679.) The task presented by this appeal is to decide, as a matter of law, whether LAUSD’s governing board complied with the statutory scheme for adopting regulations and policies, so that it had adopted a legally enforceable vaccination policy that then permitted the lawful dismissal of Petitioner.
The task of deciding such question “in turn is usually determined by a statutory system which indicates the scope of both agency and judicial function.” (Poverty Resistance Center v. Hart (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 295, 303 [“Poverty”].) 1 Whether an agency has stayed within the boundaries set by the statutory scheme “present[s] questions of law for the court.” (Poverty, supra, at p. 305, citing Mooney v. Pickett (1972) 4 Cal.3d 669, 681.) Here, the statutory scheme that LAUSD was required to follow was the Education Code section that provided the governing boards of public school districts with the power to adopt policies and regulations necessary to operate schools for the purpose for which they are intended. (§ 35160)
When a governing board does not comply with a statutory mandate, any resulting decision based on such failure must be set aside. (Poverty, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at 299.) In Poverty, the County of Sacramento’s Board of Supervisors set levels of general relief for county residents, but failed to comply with the controlling state code sections, which mandated standards of the general relief that were to be distributed by each California County.
When the Poverty Resistance Center and individual recipients of general assistance sued, charging that the County had breached the statutory duties imposed upon it by Welfare and Institutions Code sections 17000 and 17001, they lost at trial, but on review, the appellate court held that that the County’s governing board, the Board of Supervisors, had not complied with the statutory mandate and reverse the judgment, because the County had failed to comply with the statutory scheme.
This – what was relevant in Poverty – was not the actual level of aid that Sacramento County had set, but rather “the lawfulness of the Board’s action in setting the standard of aid which is under review.” (Id., at 203 Cal.App.3rd 302.) In turn, “the statutes which govern the agency action” determine whether the agency – in that case, Sacramento County’s Board of Supervisors – acted lawfully. (Id.)
Next section follows:
I just shared this post with him, Dr. Nass.
They have been doing witch hunts on doctors for as long as I've been alive, 69 years at least. Because nobody (the public) was paying attention, nobody had a sense of ethics, nobody had foundational concepts in healing, health nor of alternative medicine many practitioners and their families have suffered over the years, as well as all of the patients they might have treated. We now reap the rewards of ignorance, complacency and corruption.
Surely then, all those docs who do not submit to VAERS or equivalent are failing to keep adequate records?
Shameful behavior….astounding really, except it’s not in this descent into madness …
This is sick. Hippocratic Oath is gone. So is Informed Consent. Dr Phillips took the normal, required step of informing patients of the data he had seen. Instead of doing the immoral, sleazy thing by hiding the truth. Allowing the most important person in the room, his esteemed patient, to make an informed decision. No coercion was ever deemed to have happened on his part.
When our Dr-patient relationship is destroyed by TPTB, several very sequelae occur:
1. Health practitioners will no longer be guided by the informed consent requirement, and some bad actors could harm patients who would have declined treatments
2. The right to decline treatment disappears into a vacuous, nebulous world in which government or Dr dictates make one’s decision by coercion.
There are other harms; i invite you as patients and practitioners to add to this incomplete list.