URGENT MO 2020 SPECIAL SESSION THIS WEEK! THE VACCINE MANDATE IS HERE IF YOU DO NOT ACT NOW!

Updated: Dec 1, 2020

This week the Missouri General Assembly will be called to Jefferson City for a special session. One bill we are watching with alarm is Ed Emery's bill, SB1.


Keep in mind that this special session is Ed Emery's last hurrah before being termed out. He will feel no accountability as he walks away and washes his hands of the implications this bill will have on every citizen in Missouri. SB 1 is being branded as a bill enabling family members to visit loved ones in nursing homes. The problem is IF it is just that, THAT part is not readily evident. What is evident is the potential for the loss of medical protections, loss of choice of treatment, no liability in the face of mandatory procedures, etc.





(Read the text by clicking the photo of the bill below)


DISCLAIMER: PLEASE use this blog post to do your own research and ask your own questions. Get answers. And for the love of all things Holy if you are a state rep or senator PLEASE FIRST DO NO HARM. Do not assume you know what this bill means unless you carefully vet every single word.


There are two main points we are going to address here. There are many more, but for the sake of time and the speed by which this bill is being brought to the Missouri Legislature, we need to expedite the exposure to this potentially very bad bill.


YOU HAVE TO ENGAGE AND CALL STATE REPS AND SENATORS TODAY!!!!!



Emery claims this bill is not to keep citizens out of court.


(You can read the full interview by clicking on the image below)


"Emery said a lot of the bill's language is still open to interpretation, and given that vagueness, he couldn't precisely guess what opposition to it might be in lawmakers' debate — though he was trying to find out.


FIRST: How and WHY do you file a bill that is "open for interpretation"? That is political code for, he was asked to file the bill on someone's behalf and he has no idea what it even says. Further evidence that he had NO hand in writing it. Clearly, it was written by entities with an ulterior motive contrary to protecting the health and well-being of Missourians.




"I don't sit down and write this language myself," but research analysts who are attorneys wrote the language, he said.


Why would a bill have language that holds harmless any healthcare provider electing not to deliver care? Why would he sponsor a bill that he does not understand?


Nondelivery of care might include "a situation where somebody doesn't deliver (care) inappropriately, but for some reason elects not to deliver," he said.


Let's look at some key components:




COVERED PRODUCT = VACCINE

NO LIABILITY FOR THOSE WHO SELL, PRODUCE, ADMINISTER, DONATE, OR MARKET THE "COVERED PRODUCT".


The section of this bill below mentions "covered product" with repetition. You will easily see that any person who manufactures, designs, labels, sells, distributes, or donates the "covered product" shall not be liable in any civil action for injuries, death, or damages claimed to have arisen from the selection, dispensation, or use of the "covered product."


Ask yourself, why is a Missouri Senator looking to exempt anyone who is pushing the vaccine, an unproven, untested, unknown vaccine from any liability even if the "covered product" causes death among Missouri citizens simply because it is an "emergency".



The language of the bill is noted below:

537.768. 1. As used in this section, the following terms mean: (1) "Covered product", any product, or individual component thereof, used in response to an emergency;
(2) "Emergency", the same meaning as defined in section 44.010; (3) "Person", the same meaning as defined in section 144.010.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 537.760 to 537.765 to the contrary, any person who designs, manufactures, labels, sells, distributes, or donates a covered product in direct response to an emergency shall not be liable in a civil action arising out of the manufacture, design, importation, distribution, packaging, labeling, lease, or sale of a covered product if the person:

(DID YOU GET THAT? FOR ALL OF THE MANUFACTURERS; THOSE WHO MANDATE THE VACCINE: THOSE WHO SELL IT; DISTRIBUTE or DONATE THE VACCINE WILL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO YOUR HEALTH OR EVEN YOUR LOSS OF LIFE AS A RESULT OF THE GOVERNMENT TRYING TO "PROTECT" YOU WITH A VACCINE THAT MAY WORK, OR MAY KILL YOU SINCE IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOU UNDER AN EMERGENCY DECLARATION.)

(1) Does not make the covered product in the ordinary course of the person's business;
(2) Does make the covered product in the ordinary course of the person's business, however the emergency requires the to be made in a modified manufacturing process that is outside the ordinary course of the person's business; or


(TO MASS PRODUCE THE VACCINE PERSONS MAY BE ASKED TO MANUFACTURE SOMETHING THEY ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH. IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG WITH THE HEALTH OF OTHERS AS A RESULT, THE MANUFACTURER WON'T BE HELD LIABLE SINCE IT WAS DONE IN AN "EMERGENCY".)

(3) Does make the covered product in the ordinary course of the person's business and use of the covered product is different than its recommended purpose and used in response to the emergency.

3. Any person who selects or dispenses a covered product in response to an emergency shall not be liable in any civil action for injuries, death, or damages claimed to have arisen from the selection, dispensation, or use of the covered product.


(DEATH IS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN AS A RESULT OF USE OF THE "COVERED PRODUCT" AS NOTED IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE BILL.)

4. For a plaintiff to file and sustain a claim over the use or misuse of a covered product, the plaintiff shall prove by clear and convincing evidence that a person:

(1) Had actual knowledge that the product was defective and that there was a substantial likelihood that the defect would cause the injury that is the basis of the action; and (2) Acted with a deliberate and flagrant disregard for the safety of others; or

(3) Intentionally harmed the plaintiff.

5. Nothing in this section: (1) Creates, recognizes, or ratifies a claim or cause of action of any kind; (2) Eliminates a required element of any claim; (3) Affects rights, remedies, or protections under chapter 287, including the exclusive application of such law; or (4) Amends, repeals, alters, or affects any other immunity or limitation of liability.

6. The provisions of this section shall apply to all civil actions filed on or after the effective date of this act, and shall apply to all claims described in this section based on acts or omissions occurring during the emergency.


PART 2

PREMISES= YOUR SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, BUSINESSES, and YOUR HOME


EXPOSURE CLAIM= The ability to file suit against anyone who has exposed you or has allegedly exposed you to the virus and you tested positive as a result. This is a BRAND NEW definition in MO statute. This is a disaster. Attorneys will have a field day if this bill were to pass.


537.790. 1. As used in this section, the following terms mean: (1) "Communicable disease", an illness due to an infectious agent or its toxic products and transmitted, directly or indirectly, to a susceptible host from an infected person, animal, or arthropod, through the agency of an intermediate host or a vector, or through the inanimate environment;

(2) "Emergency", the same meaning as defined in section 44.010;

(3) "Exposure claim", any claim or cause of action for damages, losses, indemnification, contribution, or other relief arising out of or based on exposure or potential exposure to a communicable disease or other substance;

(4) "Person", the same meaning as defined in section 144.010;

(5) "Premises", real property in the possession and under the control of a premises owner where the premises serves a commercial, residential, educational, religious, governmental, cultural, charitable, or health care purpose;

(6) "Premises owner", a person who, in whole or in part, owns, leases, rents, maintains, or controls any premises;

(7) "Public health authority", an authority which is generally accepted to have the expertise to issue statements that are based on scientific or peer-reviewed evidence on public health matters.


(BREAKDOWN: PREMISES CLEARLY INCLUDES YOUR HOME, YOUR CHURCH, YOUR CHILD'S SCHOOL, AND YOUR PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR ANY PLACE THAT YOU OWN AND RENT AS A LANDLORD. )


EXPOSURE CLAIM WILL MAKE SENSE A LITTLE LATER IN THE BILL.


PUBLIC HEALTH AUTHORITY IS SOME ENTITY "GENERALLY ACCEPTED" TO HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO ISSUE STATEMENTS ABOUT PUBLIC HEALTH. THINK THE CDC, THE WHO (World Health Organization), OR AN UNELECTED LOCAL HEALTH BOARD.


ASK YOURSELF WHO DECIDES WHICH ENTITIES ARE CONSIDERED TO "GENERALLY" BE ACCEPTED? Are you willing to put the fate of your life and all you have worked for on someone's definition of "generally accepted"?





2. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 537.787 to the contrary, a premises owner shall not be liable for an exposure claim which was related to an emergency and sustained on the premises unless the plaintiff can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the premises owner intentionally harmed the plaintiff without just cause or acted with a deliberate and flagrant disregard for the safety of others.


EXPLANATION:

KEY PART ABOVE: YOU HAVE NO LIABILITY UNLESS... "UNLESS PLAINTIFF CAN PROVE BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE PREMISES OWNER (home, church, school, etc.) INTENTIONALLY HARMED THE PLAINTIFF WITHOUT JUST CAUSE OR ACTED WITH A DELIBERATE AND FLAGRANT DISREGARD FOR THE SAFTEY OF OTHERS".


GET THAT. REALLY let that sink in.


ASK YOURSELF HOW WOULD A PREMISES OWNER (THAT INCLUDES HOMES AND CHURCHES) SHOW A DELIBERATE AND FLAGRANT DISREGARD FOR THE SAFTEY OF OTHERS?


EXPLANATION:


LOOK BELOW AT #4. AS LONG AS YOU OPERATE IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE (whatever that means) OR AS LONG AS YOU ARE REASONABLY CONSISTENT (who decides?) with FEDERAL LAW OR EVEN A REGULATION ISSUED BY SOME UNKNOWN BUREAUCRATIC AGENCY IN WASHINGTON D.C., EXECUTIVE ORDER (think Joe Biden's promise of lock downs, national mask mandates, and a very dark winter) or an order of the unelected Director of the MO DHSS, or any "public health guidance" issued by a public health authority) IF YOU FOLLOW ALL OF THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS, MANDATES, RULES, AND REGULATIONS YOU WILL ESCAPE THE "EXPOSURE CLAIM" as defined in this bill above, if someone who has been in your premises tests positive for the virus or there is the probability they were exposed while in your premises due to your non-compliance, YOU will be liable and could face an "exposure claim".


If this is the law, ask yourself if your insurance agent will even insure you against such a claim unless you fully comply with all edicts mandated by all "health officials".


SCENARIO IF THIS BILL PASSES:


IN ORDER TO GET IN THE DOOR OF ANYTHING DEFINED AS "PREMISES" YOU WILL HAVE TO SHOW PROOF OF CONTACT TRACING APPS ON YOUR PERSON, VACCINATIONS CURRENT, AND BASED ON YOUR HISTORY ON ALL OF THE FACIAL RECOGNITION CAMERAS LOCATED IN THE CITY WHERE YOU LIVE YOU WILL BE FLAGGED IF YOUR BIOMETRICS PROVE THAT YOU HAVE NOT WORN YOUR MASK AS MANDATED BY LAW, YOU WILL BE DENIED ENTRY INTO THE PREMISES THAT ARE TRYING TO STAY OUT OF COURT WITH AN EXPOSURE CLAIM. TO DO THIS THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW ALL RULES FOR THE BENEFIT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFTEY. YOU MAY SAY YOU WILL NEVER TAKE THE VACCINE, BUT IF A GROCERY STORE WANTS TO AVOID A LAWSUIT THEY WILL BE FORCED TO COMPLY WITH THE "ADVICE" OF UNKNOWN "HEALTH EXPERTS" OR BE WIDE OPEN TO LAWSUITS IF THEY REFUSE TO COMPLY.

IT IS ALL ABOUT COMPLIANCE. YOU WILL TAKE THE VACCINE IF YOU WANT TO FEED YOUR FAMILY. YOU WILL HAVE TO IN ORDER TO WORK OR TO ENTER ANY SCHOOL, STORE, OR PLACE OF WORSHIP.

3. A premises owner who uses their premises, in whole or in part, in a manner different than its normal use to assist in direct response to an emergency, shall not be liable for an exposure claim on the premises.



*****KEY PART OF THE LEGISLATION THAT BRINGS IT ALL TOGETHER. IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE, READ THIS SECTION OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION: *****


4. Any premises owner that operates in substantial compliance with, or is reasonably consistent with, federal or state law or regulation, executive order, health order of the director of the Missouri department of health and senior services, or rule, regulation, ordinance, or public health guidance issued by a public health authority, which was applicable at the time the conduct or the risk allegedly caused harm, shall not be liable for a claim related to conduct intended to reduce an exposure claim.



SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE? REASONABLY CONSISTENT? WHO DECIDES?



THE TAKE AWAY HERE IS THAT IF YOU OWN A HOME, RENT A PIECE OF PROPERTY, OWN A CHURCH, ARE ON THE SCHOOL BOARD, OWN A BUSINESS AND YOU CHOOSE NOT TO FOLLOW THE ADVICE OF "HEALTH EXPERTS" ON VACCINATIONS, MASKS, SOCIAL DISTANCING, LOCK DOWNS, CONTACT TRACING, OR ANY OTHER EDICT SET FORTH YOU WILL BE HELD LIABLE FOR AN "EXPOSURE CLAIM" IF SOMEONE YOU OR ANYONE IN YOUR "PREMISES" HAVE COME IN CONTACT WITH TESTS POSITIVE FOR THE VIRUS OR THERE IS PROBABILITY YOU OR YOUR CUSTOMERS/GUESTS MAY HAVE INFECTED SOMEONE IN YOUR "PREMISES".


If you don't comply...well, lawyer up. They have created a new path FOR YOU TO BE SUED NOW WITH THIS BILL.


5. The provisions of this section shall apply to all civil action filed on or after the effective date of this act, and shall apply to all claims described in this section based on acts or omissions occurring during the emergency.


SUMMARY: Your business won't get sued for an "EXPOSURE CLAIM" (language in the bill with a new definition created for this bill) if you COMPLY. " IF you don't comply to orders of "Health Officials" (defined above in very ambiguous terms with none of the Health officials being elected to office) and you refuse to force all employees to vaccinate, wear masks, submit to contact tracing, and you refuse to submit your "premises" (also defined in bill) to comply with forced locked downs, isolation, and forced quarantines YOU will be liable to lawsuits for "exposure claims" (newly defined term for the purpose of this COVID bill).


If you have "acted with a deliberate and flagrant disregard for the safety of others" ~language from the bill~ which is to ignore the advice of the "public health authority" ~defined in the bill~ you will be subject to an "EXPOSURE CLAIM" ~defined in this bill~ that could cost you everything.


Furthermore, IF the employees who work for you get sick or die as a result of the "COVERED PRODUCT" ~vaccine~ that you are forced to have them take at the advice of the "PUBLIC HEALTH AUTHORITY" in order to continue to work on your "PREMISES" ~defined in the bill~ (includes your home and church), you cannot be sued when they are vaccine injured or die because you have not acted with "deliberate and flagrant disregard for the safety of others." ~you followed the recommendations, advice, and guidance of "Public Health Authorities" (whomever that may be) ~. THIS is how business owners will be protected from lawsuits. You will be protected from the "exposure claims" of anyone who enters your "premises", AND you will be protected when someone is vaccine injured or dies because you submitted to the advice of the "PUBLIC HEALTH AUTHORITY" (whomever that may be).


If you COMPLY you will be protected. If not, there appears to be a whole new avenue to take you down as a result of the language of this bill.


This is NOT about freedom. This bill is about compliance. Shame on anyone who votes for this. There will be massive fallout if it passes, and we will know who to blame based on how they choose to vote on this bill.


Please call your state senator and state representative and tell them to vote NO on SB 1 while they are in a special session this week. Remind Ed Emery he does not need to be a "hero" on his way out. He is a lame duck and needs to move along.






3,936 views

Recent Posts

See All

Ready?