Merck's Mumps Component of MMR Has Been in Lawsuit Since 2010: Krahling and Wlochowski v. Merck & Co.
Why Is Our Name The Age of Autism?

Children Banned From School: Attorney Statement on Sullivan-Knapp v. Cuomo (Steuben County)

Jim crow 3Jim Crow laws have returned from what should have been the fully, totally, unequivocally dead in the form of vaccination status discrimination.  From New York State:

October 9, 2019

Attorney Statement on Sullivan-Knapp v. Cuomo (Steuben County)

We are extremely disappointed by the fainthearted and incohesive decision filed today by Judge Wiggins, but we are encouraged by most of the content of the Judge’s decision.

Judge Wiggins acknowledged that the New York legislature “callously disregarded” the religious beliefs of 19.54 million New Yorkers when removing the religious exemption to vaccination without holding “any committee hearings or substantial debate”. He wrote Water fountainthat the legislature’s actions led to the “unconscionable consequence” of 26,000 healthy children being denied access to New York schools. He ruled that “the danger to the public was somewhat overstated” in Judge Hartman’s Albany decision. He stated, “children not vaccinated because of religious exemptions make up less than 1% of the population, which hardly seems like a public health crisis”. Meanwhile, the rationale which the legislature used to repeal the religious exemption was itself overstated and nonexistent public health crisis, to which the expert affidavits attest.

Yet, despite including the above in his decision, Judge Wiggins ultimately denied the preliminary injunction, which would have eliminated the “unconscionable consequences" of the repeal bill while this case progresses to trial. He writes near the end of his decision that “precedent appears to give the legislature the authority to bar the doors (to school) to the unvaccinated". It seems he ruled this way because he believed he had no other choice to “precedent”, but this is not entirely accurate.

Sullivan-Knapp v. Cuomo is a novel case of first impression. This gives Judge Wiggins the opportunity to create new precedent in his decision. In the history of the United States, there has never been a case based solely on a state constitution involving the removal of a religious exemptions to vaccination.

We will announce next steps very soon, which may include filing a motion to re-argue in front of Judge Wiggins in Steuben County. We look forward to ending the unconscionable consequences which the legislature put in motion on June 13 as soon as the judicial process allows. Healthy children belong in school.

Attorneys James Mermigis, Kevin Barry and Elizabeth Brehm

Mermigis Law Group

James Mermigis and Kevin Barry will be speaking on Sunday, October 20 at 10:30am at the Autism Community Walk at Belmont Lake State Park in Babylon, NY (Exit 38 on the Southern State Parkway). First Freedoms will also have a booth.




I was saying the immunocompromised children were a straw man, that their throwing out even medical exemptions showed how little they cared about the immunocompromised. But the reason no one died of measles in the US since 2016 and many years prior, and only one severely immunocompromised adult woman in 2015, is because nearly everyone has gotten the MMR and very few ever get measles. Again, I'm not saying that's a reason to give, much less mandate the vaccine, I WANT measles to come back, but when it does, a relatively small number will die of it. I think that is better than our current large percentage of kids permanently disabled by vaccines, especially with autism. A lot of people would be saved from dying of cancer if they got natural measles, mumps, and chickenpox, but we probably don't have concrete numbers. It's like tetanus, people often say that no one gets tetanus these days, so no need for the vaccine, but almost 100% of our population got the tetanus series as young children, which protects for at least forty years. If that were not the case, then a certain number would have gotten tetanus and some would have died of it.


it appears that "concern for the immunocompromised' is being used as a straw man to take away medical rights, in particular the right to give or withold consent to a medical treatment.

The reality is that a percentage of unvaccinated children have legally attended school in the majority of states during 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and yet there have been exactly zero deaths from measles in "immunocompromised children", during these years.
However, there have been many deaths amongst the immune compromised from minor respiratory aliments. The school system does not actually want to make the school environment safe for the severely autoimmune compromised, or every child with a sniffle, cold or viral infection would be sent home immediately.
From the article
Viral pneumonias remain a very significant threat, present atypically and carry a high mortality.
Another article
Again, from this article
" infections in immunocompromised hosts are notable for prolonged viral shedding, higher rates of pneumonia, late airflow obstruction, and mortality.1,2 These effects are well documented for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenzaviruses (PIVs), influenza viruses, and, to some extent, human metapneumovirus (HMPV),"

Lots more articles on the link between a variety of normally mild respiratory illnesses and mortality in the severely immunocompromised, on the web and in google scholar if you are interested in reading them, or I could find them for you if you would like..

They aren't trying to make the classroom safe for the severely immunocompromised, they are just trying to use the idea of this to take away basic medical rights to informed consent.

Vaccine Information

As to the historical measles mortality rate:
In 1975 CDC manager Roger Barkin set the death to case ratio at 1 in 10,000, with a 7 fold differential in poverty counties compared to richer counties.
From his abstract:
“Higher mortality rates were noted in places with less than 10,000 people and in counties having a large percentage of the population with incomes below poverty level. Vaccine should be accessible (?) to all populations, but intensive efforts need to be directed toward groups at high risk of dying from measles who are suffering from a myriad of other health, social, and economic problems.”
What is a weaker endorsement than- “Vaccine should be accessible”?
CDC Manager Barkin had the terms, “critical, compulsory, important, mandatory, necessary, recommended, vital, etc.”, yet his conclusion is that vaccine “Vaccine should be accessible”.
The first measles vaccines had such poor efficacy that measles injections between 1963 to 1968 are not considered to be valid today when quarantines after exposure are implemented.
What other factors came into play during the early 1960's besides the vaccine that could explain the decrease in measles morbidity and mortality, for those at the highest risk?
The early and mid 1960's saw the expansion of Food Stamps (1964) and Medicaid (1965). This gave those economically depressed populations already at a high risk of injury an improved base nutritional status and access to medical care.
The initiation of the Civil Rights act (1964) allowed groups that were previously blocked from medical care access.
When you look at Barkin's US State map with mortality rates the higher incidence states are below the Mason/Dixon line.
The big issue today with letting the measles virus circulate is that the vaccination program has destroyed the timing of infection, shifting it away from children where the outcome is most benign into infants and adults. It is possible that part of the hysteria and panic that Public Health experiences is that maybe in these more vulnerable populations they have actually ten folded the mortality from 1/10k to 1/1k.
Barkin, R. M. (Bureau of Epidemiology, CDC, Atlanta, GA 30333). Measles mortality: A retrospective look at the vaccine era. Am J Epidemiol 102:341-349, 1975.



I did not mean that only three diseases were a risk to the immunocompromised. I have said here and elsewhere that even the mildest infection (for most) could be a deadly one for someone immunocompromised. I'd have to look for what you're referring to. I think there are more than three VPDs which I think might be dangerous enough in the US under certain conditions to make the vaccines for them worth considering (never mandating), but for children in general, not to benefit the immunocompromised in particular. I think the tetanus series would be a good idea after the age of two or three years old, as the DT, as the plain T is not available here now. And it has nothing at all to do with the immunocompromised, as it's not contagious. IF diphtheria came back with the parasite which made it so dangerous in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, then it would be a good idea, anyway, otherwise the DT is thought to be less reactive than the T. HIb and possibly Prevnar for babies and toddlers who have to be in daycare and are not breastfed: an option, again, not mandated. Polio if it comes back here. Keep newborns at home at least until three months old, when danger from pertussis recedes, and if there is any outbreak of anything. Girls should think about their options to prevent rubella when they reach childbearing age. Babies born to women positive for hep-B should get the vaccine.

That's not many. A child kept at home and not in daycare could do very well with no vaccines except the DT series. Certainly healthier than most, and much less likely to be immunocompromised. And I don't care if they refuse that one too: very few will get a clinical case of tetanus regardless of their vaccination status.

And yes, absolutely, immunocompromised children are at risk of getting a severe case of anything going around, even a cold. And ANYTHING can turn into pneumonia, which can kill. But it's still true that measles is the most potentially dangerous of the formerly universal childhood diseases. I am against the MMR. But I recognize that because nearly all children in school have gotten it, there is almost no measles in schools, and as a result, those immunocompromised children who would have gotten it and died of it did not do so because of the vaccinated status of nearly all the other children. I'm stating no conclusion, no prescription. Just that we will get no traction if we're not realistic about our project. We have to say, Well, I think ten deaths from measles is better than a hundred or a thousand who react to the MMR with autism. I think it is. But it might sound heartless to many.

And I was giving my impression of the health of the schoolchildren I saw. I know that statistically over half had allergic or autoimmune disease from vaccine, a third with neurological disease from vaccines, including autism. Although I guess I'm taking that on trust too, from what I've read. But most people don't see the problem the way we do, they just see the legions of healthy, active kids all around them, without knowing anything about their personal health history or the vaccine connection.


Matthew, you're right. It's about fighting fire with fire.

The three most powerful arguments:

1) Doctor offices are filled with the germs of sick people. If germs were dangerous then nobody would ever visit them. If germs are not dangerous then nobody would ever need a vaccine.

This turns *all* of their arguments on their heads - arguments about the immmune compromised, herd immunity, dangers of contagion - they all turn to water.

2) Doctors typically refuse to diagnose the condition if the patient is vaccinated and the diseases have just been renamed (differentially diagnosed).

That single handedly destroys all the "evidence" vaccines work. You would think this argument should be first it's so good but 1) is just that powerful.

3) Vaccine injury can be directly observed. Virus injury cannot as nobody ever witnessed a virus in real life jump from person to person and immediately cause injury.

That turns their "coincidence" arguments against them - no matter how much they claim there is no good evidence for vaccine injury, there must always actually be *less* for virus injury.



I did not suggest making the immunocompromised take the vaccines. I suggested making their parents aware of the safety and effectiveness of homeopathic nosodes to prevent all the VPDs. I was saying that up until now that has been the pharma lobby's major argument, that some children (the immunocompromised) cannot take the vaccine for medical reasons, meaning that the (previously) healthy must do so to protect them. I was saying that ironically enough, their taking away the medical exemption from everyone paints them into a corner, and that it makes it obvious how little they care about anyone's lives but their own to force the immunocompromised to take all the recommended vaccines. But I've also said several times here the last week that when it comes right down to it, I care more about my daughter than any other children, and I'll fight to do what's best for her regardless of the consequences to others. If it's her or them, it's going to be her, every time.

So we have now seen that really no one but their families cares much about the immunocompromised children. The vaccines salesmen have now made it clear that they're willing to throw them to the wolves for profit, while the antivaxxers say that their unvaxxed children should be free to go to school even if it means they infect the immunocompromised with a disease which may very likely prove much more dangerous for them as for healthy children. And I agree with that. But NOTICE that that is saying Well, if they die, they were very weak anyway, and would probably have died prematurely of something else anyway. That's life!

And yes, when we come right down to it, I think natural measles is so valuable for the rest of the life of those who get it and recover from it (close to 100% in developed countries), that I'm willing to say that the immunocompromised should take their own measures to protect them from it. But YES, everyone HAS to recognize that a certain, relatively small number, but especially among the immunocompromised, will be permanently disabled or killed if they get measles (or anything else). I'd say take the nosode, isolation during outbreaks, even the vaccine (crossed fingers) are also options. See a homeopath and a naturopath to seek ways of improving the immune dysfunction.

What do you suggest, Michael? The MMR is very unsafe. I hope measles will come back and that my daughter gets it before she's much older. BUT when it does, it's going to cause death in a number unknowable at this time, but much more often in the already immunocompromised than in the healthy. The almost universal use of the vaccine has prevented at least 300 million cases of measles in the US in the last sixty years, with at least 30,000 deaths at the rate of 500 per year for sixty years (inexact, to be sure, for several reasons). We now know to give vitamin A. Most people do not know to not give fever reducers, Our hectic schedules make a month at home for measles including recuperation time unlikely for most. On the other hand, measles improves immune function, lets girls protect future infants, prevents cancer and many other diseases in later life and drastically reduces all-cause mortality in children. I think it's better to just get measles. Rubella is a harmless disease for children, but in the first three months of pregnancy usually causes birth defects in the fetus, many of them horrendous and disabling. The vaccine is dangerous, the nosode is not, but its duration of protection unknown at this time. It would be better to DELIBERATELY give m, m, and r (and chickenpox) to schoolchildren at the end of the year in elementary school, one at a time, not more than one a year, to give them permanent immunity from the natural disease. But, again, a certain number would have a severe case and some would die from it. What does our community have to say about that? I would certainly inform the public as well as possible and continue to make the vaccines available for those who choose them.


I was just saying that everyone has different religious beliefs, and whatever they believe shouldn't matter, everyone has the natural right to refuse vaccines for any reason at all. But saying that safety concerns are part of religious belief is confusing. You said that if a vaccine kills one child, it should not be used at all for anyone. But as in the cases of tetanus and Hib, for example, when it is demonstrably true the number of lives saved by the use of the vaccine, you'd have to say that you are certain that God agrees with your belief that one life saved from a vaccine is worth more than thousands of lives saved from the disease. And if you are, that's all right, but it is not something which is obviously true. I don't think God agrees with that. But I really don't know how God feels about the whole issue. His ways are certainly not our ways, nor are His thoughts our thoughts. He might realize that a child who dies of whatever wakes up immediately in Paradise and is saved all the sorrow and travail of this life. He may just want to see the workings of the hearts of those making the decisions surrounding these issues. Is saving a million lives by use of a vaccine what God would want if the surrounding ecosystem and society cannot support them? It seems unlikely to me, but I don't know. Does God prefer safe vaccines to unsafe ones? Yes, definitely. As Pope Benedict said in his Regensburg address, the Christian God is one of Hellenistic logos, of reason. He is against cruelty, sadism, wanton violence, greed, unreasonable self-indulgence. So that one's easy. Does he support the use of an unsafe vaccine which still works for many without reaction while it kills a few? There, I don't know. We want better vaccine testing, but who on? Does God support using two thousand children in a vaccine trial in which a hundred of them are killed by it (let's say in an honest test with a true placebo), in the hope of saving millions once the vaccine is as safe as is possible to make it at that time? Again, I don't know.


Politicians find it expedient to frame the religious concern as always separate from medical.
Perhaps it was Connecticut where a legislator tried to create a false moral narrative by creating separate stacks of objections in 2 piles, one she described as religious, another as medical.
I think it is a false distinction.
It is the only product without due process in the event of design defect; it is unique in that there is no ethical onus on the manufacturers, the administrators, or the legislators. When the consumer is no longer allowed to refuse without state coercion it is a moral abrogation.



My last comment was in answer to yours which is now above mine. They were put up in reverse order. I don't think safety is integral to the religious argument, but a separate issue. Jesus said that it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. You could say that vaccinating the healthy was displaying lack of trust in God's will. You could say that we must accept His will, even if someone dies from an illness. Or, then again, you could say that it is permissible to seek a doctor's care for the sick, the doctor being one who puts his talents (play on words) to good use. Or you could say, if you wished, that you thought vaccines were permissible preventive care, the result of man's using his God-given intelligence to develop a medical intervention which prevents dangerous disease. You could say that they were more dangerous than helpful and distort God's design of the immune system, leading to permanent ill health. I think there should just be one big personal exemption, including religious, philosophical, other personal reasons, safety concerns, belief in holistic health or anthroposophy, or anything at all. Vaccines may not be forced on anyone against his or his parent's desire. But I don't think it is a good argument to say that we should never place one child in danger even if the purpose is to save a much larger number. This is something we all do all the time, and I don't think life would be possible if we didn't often choose the greater good at the cost of foreseeable damage to a few. We just drove to the grocery store, despite the fact that thousands a year die in car accidents, which would all be prevented if no one drove cars. I took a lot of antibiotics in April for a tooth infection, despite the fact that many die if they take an antibiotic. We always eat strawberries and blueberries at breakfast, despite the fact that a certain number die if they eat berries. We go swimming, I take showers, C. takes baths, despite etc. etc..... But no one forces us to do any of these things, and they would have no right to do so. I agree with you that no one has the right to force anyone to take any medical intervention, including and especially vaccines.


Cia, as I read your comments there's about 500 words that sort of address things. Probably more words in your comments than an average VIS. Yes lets make the immuncompromised take the vaccinations that fall into the "unavoidably unsafe" category.


Aimee Doyle

I do think we have to fight the legal and legislative fight to get exemptions (personal and religious) back from the predominantly Democratic legislatures in the states of California and New York. And we need to fight the legal and legislative fight to get exemptions (personal and religious) back from the predominantly Republican legislatures in the states of Mississippi and West Virginia. It doesn't seem to matter whether it's a Democratic or Republican legislature - the power behind the puppets is Pharma.

But getting exemptions back wouldn't get us that far...even with exemptions (still) in the majority of states the autism epidemic gets worse every year, because many people don't/can't use exemptions. We need to think bigger. I like Matthew's idea of an intense grassroots awareness campaign.


Vaccination is a faith-based ritual. No vaccine is tested against a true placebo, therefore no one can definitively state any vaccine’s safety profile. There is ample scientific evidence of harm, ample evidence corruption. Religious exemptions are about protecting a person’s ability to abstain from partaking in a state religious ritual. In a free society citizens should have the right to abstain from practicing “pharmatism” without civil sanctions.


Hi Cia,
What made you decide that only three diseases were a risk to the immunocompromised? There is no science behind that.
The severely immunocompromised are at severe risk from any disease, including for example, the common cold virus . RSV, or the common cold virus, can kill them. That's why most people with severely immunocompromised children don't let them go to school anyway.
Here is one website. While they say that most kids can go to school, along with the normal vaccine propganda ,they also say

"Respiratory viruses associated with the greatest risk for severe illness are respiratory syncytial virus, influenza virus and adenovirus [12]-[14]. All immunocompromised persons and their contacts should exercise proper respiratory etiquette and meticulous hand hygiene. Preventive measures to reduce risk for respiratory infections include the following:

Avoid contact with individuals known to have a respiratory illness, especially when they are symptomatic."

Do you really think that is going to happen in a school environment? How many runny noses, sniffing, coughing kids needing boxes of tissues have you seen at your daughters school? At most schools,unless they have a fever, a child with a respiratory illness is fine to go to school. From the New York health education dept
from the article
"Use a tissue to cover coughs and sneezes(Open external link). If you don’t have a tissue, sneeze or cough into your sleeve, not your hands. Teach your child to cover their coughs too!"
Wow. What about the immunocompromised kids? Those kids are an active danger to them, not just a hypothetical one..

Though they do suggest that a child with breathing problems should stay home til their cough is gone, so I suppose at least the kids with asthma aren't spreading some of their illnesses..

Of course,as you already know, every vaccinated child may also

A) be infected with things they are vaccinated against, since no vaccine is 100% and some diseases, like mumps are routinely spread by 100% vaccinated populations.
B) be carrying any of a number of diseases,not only respiratory viruses, but also, say, TB, which is not vaccinated against..
C) Could be asymptomatic carriers of Whooping cough /pertussis, in which case they are more of a risk to immunocompromised kids than anyone else is, since they can spread the disease without showing signs of it in some cases.
D) if vaccinated with live virus vaccines such as chickenpox, should not be around immunocompromised children or people at all...
and people with infected blood, like HIV and Hepatitis B,are allowed in school with an active infection anyway.

I suppose if we sent home everyone who could potentially carry an illness including someone who feels fine but may actually have an adenovirus brewing, then we should probably just take away everyones' right to an education.

Or we could just decide to let healthy children, vaccinated or unvaccinated, go to school..


Religious exemption ought to be available to everyone, as the vaccine product is not properly safety vetted as seen in the Harvard Pilgrim study, and the results of lawsuits regarding HHS failure to provide ongoing safety guidance.
Safety concerns are integral to the religious argument, and in fact, coalesce in unbiased assessments.
The scientific criticism of vaccine ingredients and or, their interaction with a variety of immune systems, is the fodder of the spiritual objection, the body as the temple.
There is no "greater good" in harming one to possibly help another. Vaccination is not the equivalent of giving alms to the poor, it is more like requiring a healthy child to give up a kidney for one in need.
This is not moral or socially desirable, and highly unethical.


Again, for THEM the unconscionable consequence is leaving the immunocompromised unprotected from measles, mumps, pertussis, chickenpox, flu, Hib and pneumococcal disease (and meningococcal for teens). It looks to THEM as though we really just didn't give a damn about weak, vulnerable children catching certain diseases at school and being disabled or dying from them. But for ME, with a severely and permanently vaccine-injured daughter, well, I really DO care more about what happened to her than any number of kids protected by "herd immunity." Not a good comparison, she was injured by the hep-B vaccine (never been exposed to it, then or now, and only got that one dose against my will) and the DTaP booster, after having had natural pertussis after three DTaPs. But if she DID catch measles (I refused the MMR) and gave it to others, I really wouldn't feel responsible at all if one of them had a serious case of measles.

What is our response to that? It must be two (well, several)-pronged: 1) make everyone aware of the already existing proof that vaccines always reprogram the immune system to an autoimmune response, which in many is too strong and actively causes neurological and allergic/autoimmune diseases, often leading to severe disability and even death. 2) make everyone aware of the demonstrable facts regarding a) how serious each VPD was before vaccines, how serious each would probably be now if many stopping vaxxing for them, using what statistics we have, (pertussis serious for newborns, measles as well, for the first year), Hib and pneumococcal disease for very young children, tetanus rare but always very serious, diphtheria very serious if it came back in something resembling its form in the US a hundred years ago, and polio), b) how common each VPD was before vaccines, and how common it probably would be if few vaxxed for it, (pertussis, measles, mumps, chickenpox, flu, rotavirus would become or remain very common), c) the benefits of allowing healthy children to go through the childhood diseases naturally, d) the effectiveness of homeopathic nosodes for prevention of nearly all diseases, certainly all of the VPDs (see the book The Solution and any book by Dr. Isaac Golden), e) the dangers and track record of every vaccine (pertussis (even acellular), MMR, hep-B, flu, and HPV being the most dangerous), and f) the effectiveness of every vaccine (flu and pertussis, not very, the others, very effective, but at what cost?).


I don't think "healthy children belong in school," is a good meme. First of all, school is a waste of time for everyone in terms of intellectual attainment. No one belongs in school if they have better options for babysitting, rudimental literacy, and social opportunities. Second, no one is worried about healthy children being in school. Do we have an answer to their concern that an unvaxxed child carrying measles, pertussis, Hib disease (they have a longer list, but those are really the only diseases of concern for young school-aged children) will catch one of them and go to school during the incubation period, transmitting it to other children, especially the immunocompromised?

None of these is of concern to healthy children (in most cases), and measles is actively extremely beneficial for life. But we HAVE to have a convincing answer to this question. Maybe give the numbers of those severely damaged by these vaccines and ask for a comparison with the numbers killed or disabled by the vaccines for them, using pre-vaccine figures. Give ways to protect the vulnerable. Now that they've thrown out medical exemptions, make the immunocompromised get all the vaccines. (For example, I'd say recommend the nosodes instead, safe for everyone and effective.) But if we say (and I am one of this group), that no one should be forced to get any vaccine, then we have to be willing to say that when it comes right down to it, we'd rather protect children from vaccine damage than protect the immunocompromised from getting a VPD. And I fully recognize that there are MANY ways in which an immunocompromised child could still be exposed to the diseases, etc. But making all students at school get the measles vaccine, for example, almost eliminates the possibility of any of them getting or spreading measles, or dying of it. (While depriving them of the many benefits, including much lower all-cause mortality and substantial lifetime protections against cancer and many other diseases.)

Matthew, I completely agree with you. It comes down to fighting the pharma narrative with the truth, and with ordinary people rebelling en masse. But the truth INCLUDES bad outcomes from the VPDs, and what we recommend for preventing and treating them. Each of them separately, all of us HAVE to learn the details about each recommended vaccine and the disease it is designed to prevent.

Matthew Connolly

It is clear that, at least in the short term, the courts are not the answer. There, it’s not about what’s right, it’s about what’s legal.

Likewise, state legislatures will fall like dominos, over however many years. The other side has way too much power and influence there.

The only way to overcome all this is is through an intense, grassroots, guerilla- style campaign of awareness raising and perception changing.

The science is, ironically, on our side, but most people don’t understand science, (including legislators.)

What we need is a way to translate our facts and related arguments into a language that people can latch onto, just as they have latched onto the meme that vaccines are safe and effective beyond question. It’s about fighting fire with fire, not water.

Wherever you are, get to work. There will be no savior. It’s up to us.

Bob Moffit

"He (the judge) wrote that the legislature’s actions led to the “unconscionable consequence” of 26,000 healthy children being denied access to New York schools"

Duh … if he believes the legislature's actions led to the 'unconscionable consequence" of 26,000 families .… case closed in favor of ending that "unconscionable consequence" .. PERIOD.

If a judge is simply going to deny what is right and just .. in favor of a precedent rather than the present facts he has been asked to rule on .. WHO NEEDS HIM? If precedent rules .. we would still have slavery based on the prevailing 'DRED SCOTT PRECEDENT' of those terrible dark days.

This judge reminds me of the 'cowardly tin man' .. who lacked "courage" .. without which he simply cannot do the job he is expected to do. Shame on him .. and .. shame on the NY justice system he represents.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)