Vaccine Mandates Coming For Employment

[zubenelgenubi]

Read subsection (b). If you were to press charges in a judicial proceeding under subsection (a), subsection (b) overrides subsection (a) by a legal slight of hand. That means if the person or entity you are pressing charges against under subsection (a) in judicial proceeding knows about subsection (b) they can say, “your honor, under subsection (b) under public law 104-292, subsection (a) which details the consequences of such deceit does not apply to them.


``(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial
proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations,
writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or
magistrate in that proceeding.”


“(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and
willfully--
``(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick,
scheme, or device a material fact;
``(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation; or
``(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing
the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or
fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or
both.”

I don't believe that's how that works. Qualified immunity is plenty to be outraged about, though.

 

[brownman2075]

I believe that’s so the lawyer is not held accountable for the lies his client tells or submits as facts. In a judicial proceeding only. Congress is not a judicial proceeding it’s a legislative body.

However, if you were to bring any person in any capacity of government (legislative, judicial or executive) before the courts (judicial) under subsection (b) if they know about it or their legal representative knows about it has a way out of lying. This is why they get away with so much lying.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

However, if you were to bring any person in any capacity of government (legislative, judicial or executive) before the courts (judicial) under subsection (b) if they know about it or their legal representative knows about it has a way out of lying. This is why they get away with so much lying.

No, they could lie in their pleadings and not face consequences. Now if they lied about lying in their pleadings, and the judge was so inclined to believe them and dismiss the case, that would be a separate issue, because a judge could do that without this law.

 

[UnionStrong]

However, if you were to bring any person in any capacity of government (legislative, judicial or executive) before the courts (judicial) under subsection (b) if they know about it or their legal representative knows about it has a way out of lying. This is why they get away with so much lying.

I’m no lawyer but I do not think it means what you think. They can lie all they want in session so it doesn’t matter. But hey they’re crooked enough to pass some law like that

 

[brownman2075]

I’m no lawyer but I do not think it means what you think. They can lie all they want in session so it doesn’t matter. But hey they’re crooked enough to pass some law like that

I see section (b) as a loophole to section (a) because section (b) refers specifically to a judicial proceeding and that means a court of law. That means that no matter how much lying they did while in session (be it legislative, executive or judicial), if their feet are held to fire in a court of law (judicial proceeding), they (party) or legal counsel (lawyer) can’t legally be held accountable. That’s how I interpret it,

 

[UnionStrong]

I see section (b) as a loophole to section (a) because section (b) refers specifically to a judicial proceeding and that means a court of law. That means that no matter how much lying they did while in session (be it legislative, executive or judicial), if their feet are held to fire in a court of law (judicial proceeding), they (party) or legal counsel (lawyer) can’t legally be held accountable. That’s how I interpret it,

Well thats it then, as long as it’s in session not outside. They’re just as liable as you and me outside.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Well thats it then, as long as it’s in session not outside. They’re just as liable as you and me outside.

That's not what the court said in Warren's case.

 

[brownman2075]

Well thats it then, as long as it’s in session not outside. They’re just as liable as you and me outside.

You mean under oath,

 

[brownman2075]

That's not what the court said in Warren's case.

Refresh me on the Warrens case.

 

[UnionStrong]

You mean under oath,

No they can lie in Congress, but outside they are subject to the law. That’s why they say all kinds of outrageous things in session, but outside they can be sued

 

[UnionStrong]

Refresh me on the Warrens case.

???

 

[brownman2075]

No they can lie in Congress, but outside they are subject to the law. That’s why they say all kinds of outrageous things in session, but outside they can be sued

I think we are saying the same thing, but under subsection (b) even if they tell the truth under oath, I don’t see those actions while in session being upheld as punishable or at best they can lie under oath and if the only evidence bring presented by the claimant is that which occurred while in session then under section (b) the defendant walk free.

 

[UnionStrong]

I think we are saying the same thing, but under subsection (b) even if they tell the truth under oath, I don’t see those actions while in session being upheld as punishable or at best they can lie under oath and if the only evidence bring presented by the claimant is that which occurred while in session then under section (b) the defendant walk free.

I think that’s it

 

[brownman2075]

I think that’s it

That’s just outrageous.

 

[UnionStrong]

That’s just outrageous.

Sure is

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Refresh me on the Warrens case.

I posted the link above.

 

[Poop Head]

Video Targets Gates With Old Clip, Misleading Edit - FactCheck.org

In a 2010 TED Talk focused on developing new technologies to drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions, Bill Gates briefly mentioned reducing the rate of population growth. A conspiratorial video circulating on Facebook misleadingly edits Gates' talk to suggest his "wish" was to depopulate the...

www.factcheck.org

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

Bill Gates, vaccines and population control make for infectious conspiracy theory

Social media users are sharing an old newspaper article that highlights Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates’s plan to depopulate the world through forced vaccination.

www.google.com

You can make all these super intelligent posts with all these great philosophical points; yet I have to sit here and tell you that CONTEXT MATTERS
This is the most Z thing ever.
You skip right over the truth with your constant intent to find examples of conspiracy.
The truth is much simpler. You need to RELAX

The simple truth?

Kinda like how covid was leaked from the wuhan bioweapons lab?

 

[brownman2075]

I posted the link above.

I think I understand what all this sovereign immunity is all about and it has to do with the 14th amendment. Basically Warren and Haaland are not 14th amendment citizens, therefore have sovereign immunity because they are citizens only of the states in which they reside and not of the corporate United States and therefore not subject to the federal laws there in. How did that happen? They probably don’t have social security numbers and or birth certificates which are legal contracts that our parents enter us into with the corporate United States at birth. We become second class citizens in essence or 14th amendment citizens.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I think I understand what all this sovereign immunity is all about and it has to do with the 14th amendment. Basically Warren and Haaland are not 14th amendment citizens, therefore have sovereign immunity because they are citizens only of the states in which they reside and not of the corporate United States and therefore not subject to the federal laws there in. How did that happen? They probably don’t have social security numbers and or birth certificates which are legal contracts that our parents enter us into with the corporate United States at birth. We become second class citizens in essence or 14th amendment citizens.

Oh man. We're not starting with this now, are we? Next you're going to tell me about the gold fringe on the flag, signifying an admirality court, means you don't recognize its authority. I'm not saying the sovereign citizen stuff has zero basis, but a lot of it is just out there. On the other hand, our government is just about fully corrupt and completely unaccountable. If a sovereign citizen's movement gains traction as a result of the absolute bat crazy stuff the establishment is currently normalizing, and can actually accomplish something, who am I to criticize?

 

[MenInBrown]

You compare driving a car to a worldwide pandemic?
Genius

I think the fact that you came up with that response from what I wrote tells us all we need to know. FYI there isn’t a pandemic. Actually there were only about 5 states that experienced, what we use to label as a pandemic. I should have known analogies would fly over your cone head. Focus more on the part of me telling someone in another state what to do. Good luck fruitcake