The laws written to ensure your kids are vaccinated are their own undoing.
By General Maddox.
The passage of SB277 has the pro and anti vaccination world in an uproar. The Bill was signed into law on June 30, 2015 and takes effect in January 2016. The passing of this Bill into law was seen a major loss in the fight for freedom of choice and the loss of rights as a parent by the anti-vaccination lobby as well as human rights groups.
The Bill was written to ensure that all children in the U.S. State of California receive vaccinations according to the vaccine schedule mandated by the state. The ideology behind it is that so called “herd immunity” will kick in and everyone will gain protection from whatever disease, virus or bacterium the inoculation is supposed to thwart.
That highly perpetuated myth has been pushed by mainstream media, politicians and the pro-vax lobby for years and is one of many scare tactics used by them to coerce parents into vaccinating their kids.
So how are parents supposed to win the battle now that it’s written into law? Well as it turns out the law (SB277) will lead itself to its own demise and render it useless. In fact, it’s exactly what parents need to win!
How so? Well it’s the wording of the Bill and the definitions in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA Statutes that render it obsolete. Here’s the first sentence of the Bill SB277…
Existing law prohibits the governing authority of a school or other institution from unconditionally admitting any person as a pupil of any public or private elementary or secondary school, child care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or development center, unless prior to his or her admission to that institution he or she has been fully immunized against various diseases, including measles, mumps, and pertussis, subject to any specific age criteria.
[Note that I bolded and underlined word PERSON.]
Now here’s the definition of the word PERSON according to the STATE OF CALIFORNIA Statues…
17. “Person” includes any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, limited liability company, business trust, corporation, or company.
Note that a “Person” is simply referring to your dead legal fiction. In other words, your strawman. Not a living flesh and blood human being. Moreover, not your living child either. It’s right there in black and white.
In lay mans terms, SB277 does not apply to flesh and blood living human beings, only to their definition of a “Person” which as you can see doesn’t include your child.
So how should you proceed from here?
Your next course of action is to visit this website http://www.parentsagainstmandatoryvaccines.net and http://www.anticorruptionsociety.com download the various resources and templates to issue your own legal notices to your child’s school and even your college or employer.
What people need to realise is that the State wishes to inject an unwarranted pharmaceutical product into you and/or your child. The corporation that manufactures that product is also protected under law from being sued for damages should that product cause harm. That’s right, you can’t sue them if your child is damaged by a vaccine in any way.
So ask the pro-vax parents if they want to take that uninsurable risk. Because that’s what it is. Vaccine damage cannot be insured against. Just ask your private health insurance company to cover your and your family against vaccine damage. They will refuse.
Now it’s your turn to refuse. Legally.
Real News Australia 
They’ll just change the wording to suit what they realise…..
They can’t do that.
They can’t change the definition of the word PERSON as it would render so many contracts obsolete. They cannot add child or flesh and blood child into the statute (SB277) either as it negates contract law that parties must be equal.
Reblogged this on TOTT News.
Person
In general usage, a human being; by statute, however, the term can include firms, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in Bankruptcy, or receivers.
A corporation is a “person” for purposes of the constitutional guarantees of equal protection of laws and Due Process of Law.
Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/person
So while the term person applies to all sorts of business arrangements, it means first and foremost a human being and that is why the first thing the Californian statutes says it applies to, is persons and why the definition I’ve posted above says in statutes, it “can include” business entities. They mean human beings. It sucks but that’s the way it is.
Not according to their own definitions. As it says in the article. They’ve stated what their definition of ‘person’ is. Therefore they’re locked into that.
In the definition of “person” the first thing it includes is ‘person’ amongst the list, implying the term “Person” legally includes individual people.
Does it state human being or flesh and blood human? No it doesn’t.
Your assumption is your consent. DO NOT CONSENT!!!! You have just handed them the power.
And how exactly does a law written in the US which is relevant to the US only, affect Australia? You have given the case for what is going on in the US and provided no links to how it will play out here. You then direct people to others websites – again without creating a bridge between the US information listed and here.
The article wasn’t written as the answer to all our problems. It identified specific ways to free the people in California. YOU need to do your own research and find out for yourself. Please feel free to share information as I have done.
Like Morpheus says to Neo.
“I can only show you the door. You have to walk through it”
Thanks for this.
We have shared it widely in the Australian communities who don’t vaccinate.
We won’t be giving up without a fight.