The COVID and jab madness has reached a new level, as an Illinois judge recently told a divorced mom she couldn’t see her child, unless she got the magic jab. The response was intense, and now, the judge has backed-off, leaving a lot of anger and many questions for the public to consider.
Remember, this is not indicative of an authoritarian predilection to push people around… Or, perhaps it is, even as we see the "change of mind" manifested by the judge...On Saturday, August 28, Dane Placko, of FoxNews Chicago affiliate Channel 32 reported:
In what all parties agree is a very unusual and perhaps unprecedented step, a judge at Chicago’s Daley Center has stripped Rebecca Firlit of custody because she refuses to get a vaccination shot.
And remember, everyone needs to keep calling the mRNA gene vector injection a “vaccine” because that makes the magic work.
’I miss my son more than anything. It's been very difficult. I haven't seen him since August 10th,’ Firlit told FOX 32 News in an exclusive interview.
As Placko notes, that was when Firlit and her former husband used Zoom to appear for a child support hearing involving their 11-year-old son. The parents have been divorced for seven years, and have joint custody.
She says out of the blue, Cook County Judge James Shapiro asked her whether she had been vaccinated. Firlit told Shapiro she had not because she has had bad reactions to vaccines in the past.
She also could have mentioned that a recent Israeli study indicates that acquired, natural, immunity is better, and longer-lasting than the effects of the mRNA jabs, and that it was no business of the judge to ask or include any worry about her personal jab status in his hearing.
Shapiro then ordered that Firlit be stripped of all parenting time with her son until she gets vaccinated.
Isn’t it great that Shapiro gets paid off taxpayer toil?And, remember, demanding a particular activity on the part of another, while using a threat, backed by government force – that’s totally not government-level extortion. And forcibly injecting someone against his or her will isn’t assault in any way, right? I mean, if a woman were to suffer some coercive guy injecting a foreign substance into her – that totally, absolutely, would be completely unlike assault.
Do I have that correct, Judge?
Ms. Firlit appealed Judge Shapiro’s order, and her attorney, Annette Fernholz, observed that Ferlit’s former husband did not ask the judge to inquire about the jab status. It was the judge who obsessed about that.
’You have to understand, the father did not even bring this issue before the court. So it’s the judge on his own and making this decision: that you can’t see your child until you’re vaccinated,’ Fernholz added.
Statistically, the child stands a near zero chance of becoming ill with, or spreading, COVID-19.Yet, the judge arbitrarily demanded to know the mom’s jab status and appears to have hinged his decision to strip Ms. Firlit’s parental rights on her reply. By any reading of basic human ethics and Natural Rights, Rebecca Firlit should not have to answer about her private jab decisions to a tax-funded edict-pusher, and if a judge employs state force to coerce that from her, she is, clearly, a victim of judicial authoritarianism.
The only thing that appears to have stopped Shapiro has been public outcry and negative worldwide response. On Monday, August 30, Fox 32's Placko offered an update, to report that magnanimous Judge Shapiro reversed his decision:
(T)he mother's attorney told FOX 32 Chicago that the judge reversed his previous order and said that Firlit could see her son after all.
'Judge Shapiro just issued an order vacating portions of his prior order of August 11th so Rebecca Firlit can see her son again,' attorney Annette Fernholz told FOX 32 Chicago.
Fernholz said Shapiro's decision to reverse his ruling was spurred by national backlash after the story was first reported by FOX 32 News.
Which makes one wonder what would have happened on appeal, and to think about how, either way, the judges to whom she would have appealed would get her tax money, and get tax money from others, to pay their salaries.
So, who really wins, in such a world?