I know a bit about Cease and Desist documents. I issued one once. It was ignored, noted in a court decision as “interesting and perhaps inflammatory”. The court decision was consequent to the ignoring of the document in that the activity persisted. It was defamation by the way.
The key to a Cease and Desist document is that unless it is issued by a court and sealed as being a court document, it can not be held to be an order. And yet Rukaya Kendall promotes two such documents as orders in that vein.
Here is one of the documents he is talking about.
(The red parts are to be subbed)
Let’s break this down.
1. There is no such law as the Slavery and Sexual Servitude Act 1999. It is the Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999 and represents an amendment to the Criminal Code Act 1995.
2. The description that follows fails the test of “slavery”. The definition of slavery in the amended Criminal Code Act 1995 states “the condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised, including where such a condition results from a debt or contract made by the person”. No ownership exists, and yet the document claims that ownership is being claimed by the state. There is no way such an interpretation can hold up.
3. A claim is also made about prevention of a lack of consent. This is a wilful misinterpretation. There is the option of not consenting to vaccination, but there are penalties involved in not consenting – and those penalties are not unreasonable in the circumstances.
4. Natural law, while it protects the individual it also protects the collective community. Natural law allows for penalties for individuals who take actions that affect others in the collective community adversely. The claim for natural law to the individual is superseded by the needs of the collective community. In this case that means the prevention of the transmission of preventable disease.
5. The note about “forcibly poisoning, infecting or otherwise introducing any toxin/s, poison/s, or other substances that are or are not foreign to our bodies” is manifestly wrong. Vaccines are not poison – or fresh water, natural salt, apples and pears are all poison. Vaccines do not infect, and vaccines do not contain toxins or other substances that are foreign to our bodies. Proper science shows that the human body in it’s natural state without issues is able to absorb any vaccine. Exceptions of course apply in various circumstances (immuno compromisation such as cancer treatment and so on or other situations where a vaccine is contraindicated – this is a judgement made by one’s doctor).
6. Finally, this document states the needs for written consent, and prosecution would follow without it. There is no case to argue there. In fact, placing this restriction on one’s children can be prosecuted conversely as child neglect on the grounds of failing to protect a child from preventable disease.
Any organisation who receives this document with the red parts amended accordingly should take it, show it to the person providing it – and tear it up in their face. It is a document that has no legal validity and as said in point 6 above if it is done on behalf of a child the organisation would be obliged to report the parent to child protection services for child neglect.
Kendall is a legal illiterate and has no right not to consent without valid and verifiable medical reasons. Neither does anyone else. It is not slavery and it is laughable to claim that it is. What this is – is a deliberate act of defiance against the will of the community to have a community free of preventable disease. Vaccines are the only protection against this, along with the protection of the herd that the community provides as a result for those individuals who do have valid and verifiable medical reasons not to be vaccinated.