LIST OF LAWSUITS AGAINST MANDATES IN CALIFORNIA and then a California code that says we are not allowed to put restraints on children that obstruct breathing. See item #3. 49005.8. (a) An educational provider shall not do any of the following: (1) Use seclusion or a behavioral restraint for the purpose of coercion, discipline, convenience, or retaliation. (2) Use locked seclusion, unless it is in a facility otherwise licensed or permitted by state law to use a locked room. (3) Use a physical restraint technique that obstructs a pupil’s respiratory airway or impairs the pupil’s breathing or respiratory capacity, including techniques in which a staff member places pressure on a pupil’s back or places his or her body weight against the pupil’s torso or back. (4) Use a behavioral restraint technique that restricts breathing, including, but not limited to, using a pillow, blanket, carpet, mat, or other item to cover a pupil’s face. (5) Place a pupil in a facedown position with the pupil’s hands held or restrained behind the pupil’s back. (6) Use a behavioral restraint for longer than is necessary to contain the behavior that poses a clear and present danger of serious physical harm to the pupil or others. (b) An educational provider shall keep constant, direct observation of a pupil who is in seclusion, which may be through observation of the pupil through a window, or another barrier, through which the educational provider is able to make direct eye contact with the pupil. The observation required pursuant to this subdivision shall not be through indirect means, including through a security camera or a closed-circuit television. (c) An educational provider shall afford to pupils who are restrained the least restrictive alternative and the maximum freedom of movement, and shall use the least number of restraint points, while ensuring the physical safety of the pupil and others. (d) If prone restraint techniques are used, a staff member shall observe the pupil for any signs of physical distress throughout the use of prone restraint. Whenever possible, the staff member monitoring the pupil shall not be involved in restraining the pupil. direct source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=EDC&division=4.&title=2.&part=27.&chapter=6.&article=5.2.#:~:text=49005.8.%20%28a%29%20An%20educational%20provider%20shall%20not%20do,by%20state%20law%20to%20use%20a%20locked%20room.
great talk by simone gold on how all these mandates are against the constitution
Children's health defense is sueing schools with mandates on behalf of parents and children. here is a great little write-up from them on laws being violated:
Why are we filing a lawsuit? The initial suits against school districts will be based on legal and policy arguments that the school districts do not have the legal authority to make these mandates. This is to help parents get through the fall semester, as we know the next action is from the State government via the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), the agency that DOES have the purported authority to add vaccines to the school mandated schedule. However, there are still legal arguments to be made against that, and we intend to make them. We believe the mandates placed upon school aged children violates bodily autonomy, religious beliefs, the Nuremberg code, Federal and State discrimination laws, and that the mandates completely disregard any natural immunity. These mandates are also illegal under California law and the statutes that govern public school vaccination requirements because they specifically say that the laws are to prevent dangerous childhood diseases, which this is not. Further, the risks to children from these injections far outweigh any benefit they may directly give to children. In addition, these “vaccine mandates” appear to be nothing less than veiled attempts to collect data from our children as most school require families to upload vaccine status and other information into cloud data systems that can never be adequately monitored by parents no matter what the districts say. Finally, before FDA approval, which itself should be questioned in the case of children, Federal law related to experimental medications (which all EUA products are) for children is clear. No child can be subjected to an experimental medical product unless that product will DIRECTLY BENEFIT THE CHILD’S CONDITION and the risk is negligible, akin to taking a temperature. All available data shows very clearly that there is little to no direct benefit to the children from these injections and the risks are massive, including all the unknown long term risks that have not yet been identified due to the fact that there simply has not been time to do long term studies. Our children deserve better than this. We believe all Californians, and especially children, are protected under the Nuremberg Code, The Declaration of Helsinki, and Siracusa Principle, which declare that every human being has the right to refuse medical procedures. A declaration of emergency does not supersede human rights or forced coercion of any procedure. We support parental rights, liberties, and the protection of children. It has long been observed that governments may not repress and deny fundamental rights and freedoms of people. There is an international covenant on Civil and Political Rights called the Siracusa Principle. California and Federal law has codified in law your rights and protection under California Health and Safety Codes and the Code of Federal Register, against medical mandates, experimentations on children, experiments, including failure to give fully informed consent on risks, unknowns, and long-term health impact, including possibly mandating or forcing products, but failing to communicate “experimental subject’s bill of rights,” with a list of the rights of a subject in a medical experiment, written in a language in which the subject is fluent. For example: § 24174. “Medical experiment” As used in this chapter, “medical experiment” means: (a) The severance or penetration or damaging of tissues of a human subject or the use of a drug or device, as defined in Section 109920 or 109925, electromagnetic radiation, heat or cold, or a biological substance or organism, in or upon a human subject in the practice or research of medicine in a manner not reasonably related to maintaining or improving the health of the subject or otherwise directly benefiting the subject. The new investigational mRNA technologies “penetrate” the tissues of a human subject, and along with PCR testing, is classified as a CLASS B medical device. CHD-CA and PERK also very aware of digital health passes or certificates launching in schools, cities, and counties across the state. Many are disguised as health passes, but in reality, they are mass surveillance systems, tracking platforms, genetic programs, masquerading as necessary health programs. We believe these certificates and tracking programs will lead to discrimination, a medical apartheid, and open an unprecedented danger for removing people from society.
STATE LAWS: *CA CIVIL CODE 43- U HAVE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM PHYSICAL HARM. JAB/NASAL SWAB TEST/MASK ALL HARM YOU. *CA CIVIL CODE 46 - IT’S A CRIME TO SAY YOU HAVE A CONTAGIOUS DISEASE WHEN YOU DON’T (DEFAMATION) (FROM AIDS ERA) AND AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT TOO. *CAL GOV CODE 12926Q -YOUR RELIGIOUS CREED HAS TO DO WITH WHAT YOU DO LIKE YOUR FACE COVERINGS/ NON FACE COVERINGS. SECOND CORINTHIAN -#318 WHERE THERE IS THE LORD, THE FACE IS UNVEILED. #317 THERE IS LIBERTY. *CAL HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE 24172: RIGHT TO NO CONSENT TO MEDICAL EXPERIMENT WITHOUT COHERSON OR UNDO INFLUENCE (“STAY HOME!”) OR DIRESS (LOSE YOUR JOB). *CA GOV CODE 37100 PROTECTS YOU FROM "UNLEGAL" LAWS-THE LEGISLATIVE BODY MAY PASS ORDINANCES NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE STATE OR THE UNITED STATES. REGULATION, NOT LAW SEE FULL VIDEO FROM PEGGY HALL: HTTPS://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=3TF0FTARNES
Is Biden's jab mandate legal? https://thehighwire.com/videos/is-bidens-vaccine-mandate-legal/
Travis Tritt cancels all concerts with vaccine-mandated venues: https://rumble.com/vo1ygl-country-singer-travis-tritt-cancels-concerts-in-venues-with-mandates.html?mref=6zof&mc=dgip3&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Turning+Point+USA&ep=2
Judge ruled no more jab mandates in ny: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9BhtZyyueXk&feature=youtu.be
School mandate lawsuit press release: https://www.perk-group.com/news/school-vaccine-mandate-lawsuit-update?ss_source=sscampaigns&ss_campaign_id=6175c9c4a8c795267736e862&ss_email_id=6175cac769b569207d3038f2&ss_campaign_name=School+Vaccine+Mandate+Lawsuit+Press+Release&ss_campaign_sent_date=2021-10-24T21%3A06%3A23Z