• PREP Act Invoked Nationwide for the First Time in U.S. History - Will Martial Law Follow?

    What is this “PREP Act” that has entered our vocabulary this past week? Several terms that were foreign to most just a couple of months ago are now becoming mainstream. Social Distancing. Congregate Settings. Sustained Community Transmission. Flatten the Curve. Prep Act. And even proper personal hygiene for some. I have been discussing the need for many to read and understand the complexities and pitfalls of this federal law for a few years. The PREP Act or “Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act” was the product of President Bush 43 and his Health and Human Services (HHS) Agency. The PREP Act was passed in December of 2005. Most of the emphasis for this act was born upon the federal government’s response to the Anthrax scare immediately after 9/11. We are witnessing the PREP Act in action for the first time nationwide since its passage in 2005. No one really knows the extent of the law and how it will affect everyone in the United States, short term and long term. Most of the media has not even discussed the details of the PREP Act and how it will affect the general public.

    Read full story...

  • PREP Act Invoked Nationwide for the First Time in U.S. History - Will Martial Law Follow?

    AdminM said:

    What is this “PREP Act” that has entered our vocabulary this past week? Several terms that were foreign to most just a couple of months ago are now becoming mainstream. Social Distancing. Congregate Settings. Sustained Community Transmission. Flatten the Curve. Prep Act. And even proper personal hygiene for some. I have been discussing the need for many to read and understand the complexities and pitfalls of this federal law for a few years. The PREP Act or “Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act” was the product of President Bush 43 and his Health and Human Services (HHS) Agency. The PREP Act was passed in December of 2005. Most of the emphasis for this act was born upon the federal government’s response to the Anthrax scare immediately after 9/11. We are witnessing the PREP Act in action for the first time nationwide since its passage in 2005. No one really knows the extent of the law and how it will affect everyone in the United States, short term and long term. Most of the media has not even discussed the details of the PREP Act and how it will affect the general public.

    I am a constitutionalist (Australia) and because the Framers of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) based some parts of our constitution upon the USA and its first 14 amendments I am very much interested in what goes on within the USA.

    This article to me is excellently written. Very clear. While the writer does show that the act precludes any revisions by a court, I am a person who doesn’t accept this to be enforceable if the constitutional demands justice.

    Any act ultimately falls foul if it is in violation with the constitution. No congress/Parliament can validly enact legislation that is contrary to any constitutional provisions.

    For example, I refused to vote in 2001 and 2004 federal elections upon the basis that “compulsory” voting was unconstitutional. I citied the embedded legal principles of the constitution. See AEC v Schorel-Hlavka 19-7-2006) After about 5 years of litigation, representing myself, against all Attorney-Generals, I succeeded in both appeals unchallenged. (Mind you that sometimes I do vote, not because of compulsory doctrine but when I view there is a worthy candidate standing.) And this I urge every person to consider, that merely because there is some legislation that denies some remedy in the courts it doesn’t mean that it is constitutionally valid. Take the 1970 Welsh case ( I also relied upon in my past litigation) “WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76., Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970”. Here we had a person determine to rely upon his/her constitutional rights and clearly succeeded in this.

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation, which would abrogate them. Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436, 125.

    For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party (Corpus Delicti) There can be no sanction or penalty imposed on one because of this Constitutional right. Sherer v. Cullen 481 F. 945.

    BROWN v. TEXAS, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) -- CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 3527. The law helps the vigilant, before those who sleep on their rights. "A statute does not trump the Constitution." People v. Ortiz, (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 292, fn. 2 Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 163 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JERRY ARBERT POOL, C.A. No. 09-10303, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (Opinion filed September 14, 2010), On Appeal From The United States District Court For The Eastern District of California "A statutory privilege cannot override a defendant's constitutional right." People v. Reber, (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d. 523 [223 Cal.Rptr. 139}; Vela v. Superior Ct, 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921], however, "the judiciary has a solemn obligation to insure that the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial is realized. If that right would be thwarted by enforcement of a statute, the state ...must yield." Vela v. Superior Ct., 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921 Obviously, administrative agencies, like police officers must obey the Constitution and may not deprive persons of constitutional rights. Southern Pac. Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 18 Cal.3d 308 [S.F. No. 23217. Supreme Court of California. November 23, 1976.] If evidence of a fact is clear, positive, un-contradicted and of such nature it cannot rationally be disbelieved, the court must instruct that fact has been established as a matter of law. Roberts v. Del Monte Properties Co., 111 CA2d. 69 (1952) If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers. Thomas Pynchon They will do whatever we let them get away with. Joseph Heller ~*~

    Let us join around the world to defend our basic constitutional rights as they exist from country to country. A Constitution is a contract between the state and its people. It means the State has no unilateral powers to override the terms of the contact that the constitution is.

    Any Member of Congress/Parliament is bound to ensure that it opposes any part of legislation that may contravene constitutional rights.