The Not-So-NICE ACT

A catchy title, The NICE Act, (HR 5816), is a federal Act recently introduced in Congress under the appearance of a Health Freedom Bill.

Look closer. The NICE Act is not what it appears to be. It attempts to do something it is not designed to do. Then again, the rule of law always has exceptions. In this case, it is important to be aware that federal Acts regulate commerce, not people. Note, when federal Acts attempt to regulate people, money is always involved.

Follow the money.

The NAUGHTY but NICE Act?

Where there is government overreach, The NICE Act (HR 5816) becomes The Naughty Act. Let us break it down into 8 proofs:

A BILL…

“To prohibit the federal Government, or State or local government or other entity receiving federal funding, from requiring any citizen to be vaccinated, including federal agencies from requiring its employees to take any vaccination, without the citizen being fully advised in writing of all known potential risks from the vaccine and consultation with a physician followed by the voluntary informed consent of the citizen, and for other purposes.”

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “National Informed Consent Exemption (NICE) Act.”

1.This bill directly affects any entity, or person, receiving federal money.

(a) The federal Government, and persons receiving federal funding, are prohibited from requiring any citizen to be vaccinated or tested for an infectious disease without due process of law. Citizens have the fundamental right to decline vaccination for an infectious disease without penalty.

Aha! The beginning of the money trail. This Act attempts to regulate an individual’s choice for healing. Whether a citizen chooses vaccination or not speaks to consent, not Informed Consent. This is a consent bill masquerading as an Informed Consent bill. However, whatever this bill claims to be, the freedom to choose is a Right, far removed from federal commerce and its regulations. How people heal is protected by States and State Constitutions, and should not be redefined by federal Acts that attempt to legislate choice.

2. Informed Consent is Not Consent

Informed Consent already exists in a current law, codified at 45 CFR § 46.116 – General requirements for informed consent. It exists to protect a patient’s right to receive information, including risks, before accepting or declining a medical procedure. No one is required to submit to any procedures without informed consent. Again, informed consent is not to be confused with Consent, meaning the ability for someone to accept or to decline an offer, such a vaccination. This bears repeating.

Informed consent occurs when there is agreement to an interaction or action rendered with knowledge of relevant facts, such as the risks involved or any available alternatives. Informed consent often comes up in the contexts of legal ethics, medical treatment, and waiver of constitutional rights. – Legal Information Institute.

It is important to know that a government-granted exemption is a privilege, not a right. The ability to decline a medical procedure, including vaccination, is, and always has been, a Right. Rights are inborn, granted by the Creator. Rights do not come from government. Governments are established to protect the rights of men and women. See ‘The Declaration of Independence.’

No government has the power to legislate a right, even when naming it as “an exemption,” unless the people sign on, with their signatures.

3. Medical freedom is much broader than vaccines, alone.

This medical freedom bill is limited in scope, focusing on freedom from vaccine mandates only, as if vaccination is a gold standard with few exceptions. What about freedom from coercion, drugging, medical testing, medical tracking, medical chipping, and all forms of medical tyranny inside and outside of “public health emergencies?”

4. Under the NICE Act, citizens would agree that this human right (the right to decline a vaccine) does not apply when:

(3) Federal, State, and local emergencies where the governing authority has first formally applied to the President of the United States of America for a NICE exception, and provided that the President in his discretion formally authorizes the requested exception based on the following criteria proven by the governing authority: (i) compliance with the procedure in section 5(b) would be materially impractical, (ii) the requested NICE exception would not materially interfere with National Security, and (iii) short-term and long-term side effects from the vaccination, including serious injuries and deaths, have been proven to occur in less than 1 in 200,000 individuals.

Did you notice that this bill includes exceptions for the exemption? Would a perceived threat to national security invalidate the NICE exemption? What authority determines the level of security threat that would trigger this revocation? Would government be able to deploy a mass vaccine rollout in public schools, as has happened in the past? The language of this bill attempts to swap a privilege for a privilege, with exemptions for an exemption, but remember, human rights ALWAYS apply.

5. Any medical procedures, drugs, or vaccines are always optional, yet the NICE Act makes the assumption that there is always an exception.

The NICE Act (HR5816) reads:

(b) Vaccination shall henceforth be optional to citizens, except as provided in section 5, for their participation in society, including but not limited to education, travel, employment, government service, housing, social welfare programs, access to courts, and medical care.

6. Americans currently have guardianship laws and power of attorney, yet this Act would not apply to:

(1) lawfully incarcerated and institutionalized individuals lacking the right or ability to meaningfully provide informed consent or informed refusal;

7. The authors of this Act say this law would also not apply to the following:

(2) courts of law issuing individualized court orders specific to one individual, provided the court order applies strict scrutiny following a hearing affording due process of law to the individual affected;

Still, governments have no authority to vaccinate anyone against his will. Even though governments do coerce, they cannot mandate a vaccination.

8. This bill creates victims and subjects of the court system if violations occur under the Act.

(a) Any person who has been the victim of a violation of this Act may bring a civil action for damages against any responsible party.

Legally, a “PERSON” means an individual, a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, association, trust, unincorporated organization, or other legal entity or organization, or a Government Body. Alternatively, if you are not a PERSON, subject to this Act, then you are neither a victim of the Act, nor a subject of the federal judicial system.

Law Basics 101

The United States Congress was established for the purpose of making and enacting laws that protect the rights and freedoms of people. However, people existed before the government existed. Therefore, the rights of people supersede government laws, Acts, statutes, and dictates. Since the origin of rights and freedom comes from birth, they are known as birth RIGHTS.

Government laws exist as “BENEFITS and PRIVILEGES.” However, since the inception of the United States in 1776, both presidents and governors have been bypassing the laws through illegal Executive Orders (E.O.s) under Color of Law. Even though it might be argued that federal Acts fall under the Color of Law, the chances of finding a solution through the court system is about as likely as isolating the Coronavirus. The CDC still admits there is no gold standard for the isolation of any virus.

Government-granted exemptions for government-imposed health mandates are strategically designed to fail by entrapping those members of the community who sign onto them. Firstly, there is no legal defense or enforcement for religious or medical exemptions because businesses have no legal duty of care from imposing mandates based on the The Doctrine of Assumption of Risk.

The Doctrine of Assumption of Risk states that no business is liable to protect others from a risk that’s widely known or believed to exist in the community.

Secondly, laws cannot conflict with each other. So when mandates or Executive Orders conflict with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), then there is a violation of the legal duty of care. A legal duty is a legal obligation, the breach of which can result in liability. Businesses that impose mandates must have an insurance policy.

John Jay Singleton, of Zunga, says, Federal law, the ADA, requires businesses to aid and encourage those with disabilities in the exercise and enjoyment of their rights. This means that not only can a business owner not impose such measures on anyone, he must actively protect everyone from any violation of this law, at least by not imposing them.

To exercise and enjoy your rights doesn’t mean you have to have a disability. It means you’re regarded as having a disability. If you’re regarded as having a disability its because the government announced a public health disaster, so the legal duties come into play with the ADA. And the legal duty of care is on anyone trying to force these measure on you. John Jay Singleton

An exemption means there has to be a legal duty of care. If there is no legal duty, there is no exemption. So no court will take jurisdiction. A plaintiff in court will never win. This is another reason you do not have to beg for a right you already possess.

Exemptions bind people to an arbitrary, and a constantly changing, list of demands. These demands supersede basic freedoms, and thereupon deny people of their inalienable, God/life given rights to self-determination of their bodies. As the government giveth, so, too, can the government taketh away, on a whim.

It is important to appreciate that all vaccine-related exemptions, whether, medical, religious, moral/philosophical/personal belief, naughty or NICE, are fundamentally illegal, because they transpose an inherent human RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE, on the presumption that you acknowledge, and thus sacrifice, or forfeit, your natural born rights and ‘freedom to choose’ to an external authority.

Not So NICE

Do supporters of this bill suddenly trust a government calling the shots under the ruse of exemptions? Do they support a government morphing into a One World Government?

What if declining to participate in Acts preserves your authenticity and your rights?

All Acts attempt do one thing: to allow the government to legislate choice and freedom, that is …if you consent to the offer. But were you provided Informed Consent?

For instance, there is no American authority for compulsory vaccination, in the sense of forcing one to submit. When it comes to the government, everything is an offer to contract. When it comes to Acts, All the world is a stage.

All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts, – Shakespeare, As You Like It,

Shakespeare titled his play, As You Like It, as if to say, you always have a choice. There is no law that compels anyone to do anything related to mandated restrictions, whether COVID-related or not. The freedom to choose is non-negotiable. You always have options just like you have opinions. However, in this era, freedom must be defended and claimed as a birthright.

Because governments have inverted and overturned the basic principle of choice, by way of Acts, statutes and policies, they have bound freedom, itself, to a contract.

All government Acts apply to government entities and persons; not to men and women. Men and women are not subject to Acts, because they are not subjects.

Related Articles