Attorney Nathan MacPherson (Constitutional Attorney from Idaho) says due process requires that we are all well unless we are proven to be unwell (or considered not contagious until we have been proven to be contagious). Not a threat to our fellow man until we’re proven to be a threat to our fellow man.
Testimony and discussion included, though was not limited to, the following:
Liberty to refuse unwanted medical treatment and injections:
US Supreme Court – Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990)
US Supreme Court – Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health 497 US 261 (1990)
Various other relevant case law.
Probable cause, clear and immediate threat to public health, petitions with the Court and emergency hearings.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Strict scrutiny standard.
Religious freedom.
Christians prosecuted in 2020/2021 for holding Church service on Sunday in the United States.
Face coverings violating religious beliefs.
Private companies dictating medical policy
Private companies practicing medicine without license
HIPAA violations (e.g., medical questions asked in public).
Masks, facial coverings, social distancing.
Suicides related to covid lockdowns.
Elderly deaths and loneliness due to covid policy/law.
First amendment rights.
Fourth amendments rights.
Science in relation to policy and law.
Please exercise your free speech in the comments section below. There are no stipulations of political correctness on this blog. Speak your mind, give us your thoughts, both objective and subjective. Share your ideas, hunches, inklings or your expertise. Please provide recommendation and corrections if you spot errors in fact within the blog report. Lastly, remember that posting a comment is much like casting a vote, so please do so!
Nathan is a specialist in tax defense. His firm’s website, continuation of a practice founded by his father Donald W. MacPherson, is http://www.beatirs.com. You just can’t beat that website name for punch.
But Nathan is a rare type: educated, reflective, and deeply, devotedly, sincerely religious. This past year he has branched out in several different directions in resistance to the nation’s mad COVID-19 obsession and to the the crisis of the fraudulent election. His Amicus Brief on the Republican Form of government was surely the absolute best and the only really unique and new argument presented in the whole Texas election Complaint episode. It is a great pity that Texas didn’t adopt or amend with Nathan’s approach, and Nathan definitely offered to work with the Texas A.G.’s office. Nathan’s team lobbied Paxton all the way up to the week between Christmas and New Years…. It was in fact a crying shame because…. up to a point…. the Supreme Court was right: Texas’ brief failed to state a cause of action which would give them standing. You’d think that the Attorney General’s Office of the second largest state in the Union could do better than that, but they really fell on their face….. it was a shame.