How does my Dr. win against army of doctors?

[71MUSTY]

As my Attorney explained it to me. We can go to court. We can assemble a huge team of PAID experts who support my Doctor's Position and they will do the same with experts who support their position. In about 5 to 10 years after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars we might get our day in court and we might prevail. But then the appeals start...

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I'm beginning to believe words like mandate, guidance, executive order, decree, blah, blah, blah seem to some people to have the weight of historic and decided law....

My ears always perked up when I would hear that on the news...

It seemed so f-ing creepy to me - hearing 'get the shot', 'obey', 'allowed', 'permitted', etc... yes, all those words have been used...

I'm WAY too independent for that not to seem extremely odd to me... im not wired to ever get used to it - no matter how many times they say it... ive never gotten used to seeing humans muzzled either.

The entire thing was off from the very beginning... ive questioned it the whole way... the creepier it got, the more I was convinced - its about conditioning.

What I didn't expect - was the remarkable amount of compliance. I dont think they expected it either.

As my Attorney explained it to me. We can go to court. We can assemble a huge team of PAID experts who support my Doctor's Position and they will do the same with experts who support their position. In about 5 to 10 years after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars we might get our day in court and we might prevail. But then the appeals start...

Part of the problem is those terms (mandate, guidance, executive order, decree) DO have SOME weight in law. The issues involved is exactly how much weight, applicability in the current context, etc. Thus, the reaction from 71MUSTY's attorney.

This is the principle 'danger' we are facing and it's being used by the Left on a variety of issues now that they have the levers of power. It's the Reggie Jones-Sawyer schtick...



Regardless of how the law is ultimately decided, they do what they can while things are in limbo or uncertain to however many they can do it to; i.e., who they feel would be unsympathetic or could be made unsympathetic to the public. If they eventually lose in court, nobody cares as the 'victims' were unsympathetic and probably 'deserved' it. If they prevail in court, they've set the precedent and linked the rest of us to unsympathetic 'criminals.' It's part of the 'conditioning' LBDamned references.

Another part of that conditioning is the resultant confusion over what is actually legal and what is not. If they are enforcing laws which have yet to be adjudicated, the presumption created with the public is that it is legal and, it's similar in the courts... presumptively Constitutional until proven otherwise. While adjudication in our favor may end up 'common knowledge' in the Courts, it may not (and likely won't be) pervasively conveyed to the public, leaving a perception of legality even if it has been adjudicated unconstitutional. Think about all the questions we get on this site regarding the 'legality' of something which was adjudicated years ago?