Two New York Families Sue Schools for Denying Medical Vaccine Exemptions
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | November 4, 2025
Two New York families are suing their school districts in federal court, alleging that district officials unlawfully denied their children’s medical exemptions.
One case involves an 11-year-old, identified as “Sarah Doe,” in the Webster Central School District. According to the complaint filed last month in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, Sarah has a “documented history of life-threatening reactions to vaccines.”
The school district denied her medical exemption request for the Tdap vaccine.
The other case concerns a 17-year-old, identified as “Michael Doe,” in the Penfield Central School District. His complaint, also filed last month, and in the same federal court, states that he has a “documented personal history of severe vaccine-induced airway constriction, a strong family history of autoimmune disorders, and a life-threatening latex allergy.”
The school district denied his medical exemption request for the meningococcal vaccine.
The lawsuits ask the court to issue a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to allow Sarah and Michael to return to school and to recognize their medical exemptions as valid. The plaintiffs also seek compensation for damages, including lost educational opportunities and emotional distress.
Chad Davenport, the plaintiffs’ attorney, told The Defender that the New York school districts’ actions were “egregious” and “in direct contradiction” to a recent federal ruling in a related case, Doe v. Oceanside, involving a New York mother and her teenage daughter, also called “Sarah Doe.”
Davenport and attorney Sujata Gibson represented the teen and her mother, who successfully sued the Oceanside Union Free School District for refusing to grant the teen a medical vaccine exemption for the hepatitis B vaccine. Children’s Health Defense (CHD) funded the lawsuit.
In August, the judge issued a preliminary injunction allowing the teen to return to classes.
On Sept. 1, Davenport and Gibson sent a letter on CHD’s behalf to all New York state boards of education and superintendents, threatening legal action if school district officials continued to deny medical exemptions certified by students’ physicians.
“We sent it out and we tried to stop them from doing this, but unfortunately, it wasn’t enough,” Davenport said.
New York’s ‘flawed’ medical exemption process puts kids at risk
The situations described in the two new lawsuits are “happening throughout New York state,” he said.
CHD General Counsel Kim Mack Rosenberg said the new lawsuits highlight “how flawed the medical exemption process is in New York state.” Gibson agreed.
Mack Rosenberg added:
“For too many, the existence of the medical exemption truly is illusory and the misinterpretation of grounds for a medical exemption is rampant, both at the state and district level.
“The flaws in the system are placing families who choose to have their children educated in schools — versus homeschooling, which is not an option for everyone — in the horrible position of potentially risking their child’s health to attend school, where doctors familiar with the children recommend that the children not receive vaccines.”
Davenport said he reached out to the New York schools, requesting homeschooling curriculum.
“They give us nothing — and again, this is not unique,” he said. “Every single time that they kick these children out into homeschooling, they give them nothing. … They basically say, ‘We’re done with you.’”
Doctors cited ‘clear and documented danger’ to Sarah’s health
The Oct. 22 lawsuit states that Webster Central School District denied 11-year-old Sarah’s Tdap vaccine medical exemption despite the warning from her treating physician that further vaccination was “absolutely contraindicated” because of a prior “life threatening, multi-organ failure after vaccinations.”
When the family tried to meet the school’s vaccine requirement, healthcare providers refused to vaccinate Sarah. The complaint states:
“When the family, acting under extreme duress from these threats, attempted to comply with the District’s demands, they were turned away by multiple medical providers who refused to administer the vaccine, citing the clear and documented danger to Sarah’s health.”
The district denied Sarah’s exemption because her condition was not listed on “a rigid, pre-approved list of contraindications” published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine advisory committee.
The lawsuit also alleges that the district responded to Sarah’s exemption request with “coordinated campaign of intimidation and threats involving Child Protective Services (CPS).” The county health department warned Sarah’s mother that CPS could intervene if Sarah remained unvaccinated.
In addition to the Webster Central School District, the lawsuit names Dr. Margaret Callahan, the district’s designated school physician, and Chris Callahan, principal of Spry Middle School, as defendants.
School’s medical director showed ‘clear bias’ in case involving 17-year-old
The Oct. 24 lawsuit states that Dr. Robert Tuite, the medical director who reviewed the exemption request, said the district should need it because the request was issued by a psychiatrist, whom Tuite deemed was the “wrong” type of doctor.
However, Davenport said the judge who ruled in Doe v. Oceanside made it clear that medical exemptions don’t have to be written by a specific type of doctor.
The judge “went through the district’s demands for letters from specialists, including hematologists, immunologists” and explicitly said letters from specialists are not required, Davenport said.
“The statute is very clear: it is any physician. You do not need to have somebody with a certain specialty to certify that a vaccination may be detrimental to the health of your child,” he added.
The lawsuit also says Tuite had “profound” conflicts of interest that affected his review of Michael’s exemption request. The complaint names Tuite as a defendant, along with Penfield Central School District, Penfield High School Principal LeAnna L. Watt and Superintendent Tasha Potter.
Tuite, the district’s medical director who also runs a private practice, previously served as Michael’s doctor until a “contentious disagreement” arose between Tuite and Michael’s mother.
After “an argument over the COVID shot and whether or not her child should receive it,” Tuite kicked Michael’s mother out of his practice, Davenport said. “That’s clear bias.”
Davenport continued:
“Not only that, but then [Tuite] actually got on the phone with the doctor who wrote the medical exemption … [and] admitted that the reason why he’s rejecting it is because last time he accepted a medical exemption, he got his wrist slapped by New York State.”
New York schools fined for approving medical exemptions, case alleges
Tuite told the psychiatrist that the district faces “substantial fines” from the state’s health department for accepting any medical exemption that the state later deems invalid.
Davenport said Tuite isn’t the first person to claim that the New York State Department of Health will fine a district for allowing medical exemptions. According to Davenport, medical directors and school officials involved in lawsuits he files often make similar claims.
Davenport said they know that he will sue them for fees and damages, but they tell him that approving a medical exemption request and allowing the student into school would cost the district $2,000 per day.
“That is what they are being threatened with,” he said. “I don’t know how that message is being conveyed from the Department of Health to the schools and the school officials, but it is.”
Davenport hopes the new cases reinforce the precedent set by Doe v. Oceanside.
He also hopes the cases will send a message that New York school districts can no longer deny medical exemptions without facing judicial challenges.
Davenport said districts have generally assumed they would be “insulated” from meaningful judicial review, since families whose exemptions are denied must appeal to the state commissioner, and the commission historically sides with the school district.
“Not one final decision has ever resulted in the New York State Education Department overturning a school’s decision to deny a vaccine waiver. Not one,” Davenport said.
Now, however, families are taking their cases to federal court after the state commission fails to provide meaningful judicial review.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
New York Imposes Law Forcing Social Media to Justify Speech Policies to State Authorities
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | October 3, 2025
Social media companies operating in New York are now under fresh legal obligations as the state enforces the so-called “Stop Hiding Hate Act,” a new compelled speech law that forces platforms with annual revenues exceeding $100 million to hand over detailed reports on how they handle various forms of speech, including speech that is legally protected under the First Amendment.
The legislation went into effect on October 1 and has already triggered a constitutional showdown in court.
The law, officially Senate Bill S895B, demands biannual disclosures to the state Attorney General’s office.
These reports must outline how platforms define terms such as “hate speech,” “misinformation,” “harassment,” “disinformation,” and “extremism.”
Companies are also required to explain what moderation practices they apply to those categories and to provide specifics about actions taken against users and content.
Platforms that fail to comply face penalties of up to $15,000 per violation, per day. Injunctive action can also be taken against non-compliant entities.
Attorney General Letitia James declared that the law is about transparency and oversight.
“With violence and polarization on the rise, social media companies must ensure that their platforms don’t fuel hateful rhetoric and disinformation,” she said in a public statement, reinforcing her view that private companies should be accountable to the state for how they manage user expression.
“The Stop Hiding Hate Act requires social media companies to share their content moderation policies publicly and with my office to ensure that these companies are more transparent about how they are addressing harmful content on their platforms.”
Governor Kathy Hochul voiced similar sentiments, saying the legislation “builds on our efforts to improve safety online and marks an important step to increase transparency and accountability.”
The reporting rules, however, do not simply demand that companies disclose general moderation policies. They compel platforms to state clearly how they define some of the most politically charged and subjective categories of online content. These include terms that do not have universally accepted definitions and that often serve as the basis for viewpoint discrimination.
This government demand for compelled speech is at the heart of a legal battle now playing out in federal court.
In June 2025, X Corp., the company behind the X platform, filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law.
The company’s complaint argues that Senate Bill S895B is a direct assault on editorial discretion and a violation of free speech rights enshrined in both the US and New York Constitutions.
According to the complaint, the law imposes “an impermissible attempt by the State to inject itself into the content-moderation editorial process.” X warns that the statute operates as a tool to pressure platforms into adopting government-favored positions on disputed topics.
Key to X’s legal objection is what it refers to as the “Content Category Report Provisions.” These provisions, the company argues, effectively force platforms to accept the state’s framing of controversial topics, including “foreign political interference” and “hate speech,” regardless of how a private entity might choose to treat or define such categories independently.
The lawsuit also highlights the heavy financial threat tied to non-compliance, noting that fines can reach $15,000 per day for every violation. In addition, platforms could face legal action from the Attorney General’s office.
In defending its position, X Corp. references a victory it recently secured in a separate First Amendment case involving a similar law in California. There, the Ninth Circuit ruled that forced reporting of this nature likely constitutes compelled non-commercial speech and does not hold up under strict scrutiny.
The court concluded that forcing platforms to adopt state-defined language “amounts to compelled speech,” a stance X Corp. is urging the Southern District of New York to follow.
The company’s lawsuit goes a step further, pointing to legislative bias as motivation for the law’s passage.
According to the complaint, New York lawmakers refused to engage with X’s representatives in the wake of the California ruling, explicitly citing their disapproval of Elon Musk’s public statements and use of the platform.
In correspondence included in the court filing, lawmakers dismissed the company’s concerns because, in their words, Musk had used X to promote content that “threatens the foundations of our democracy.”
That remark, X argues, reveals a plainly unconstitutional motive rooted in viewpoint discrimination. “The government cannot do indirectly what [it] is barred from doing directly,” the complaint states, referencing controlling Supreme Court precedent.
Despite the ongoing litigation, New York officials are moving forward with the law’s enforcement.
Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal, one of the bill’s sponsors, defended the policy as a necessary countermeasure to what he described as real and potential violence driven by online speech. “The Stop Hiding Hate Act will ensure that New Yorkers are able to know what social media companies are doing (or not doing) to stop the spread of hatred and misinformation on their platforms,” he said.
The outcome of the lawsuit could have wide-reaching implications not only for companies operating in New York but also for how much power states can exert over online speech. For now, platforms face a stark choice: speak as the state demands or risk steep penalties for silence.
Green Energy Wall Coming Into Focus In New York?
By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | August 17, 2025
It was back in 2021 that I started to ask which country or U.S. state would be the first to hit the “Green Energy Wall.” It has long been obvious to anyone who looks at the situation that the fantasy of a fully de-carbonized energy system, with everything run on electricity generated by intermittent wind and sun, could never happen.
But what would be the limiting condition that would put a stop to the madness? Would it be confronting the absurd costs of grid-scale battery storage? Or perhaps a string of blackouts caused by insufficient backup of the wind and solar generation?
Here in New York, we are starting to see some push back from politicians on the fantasy green energy transition, but the source may be the last thing you would have predicted. The immediate issue is the cost of upgrading local delivery infrastructure to transmit sufficient electricity for the imagined future of electrified buildings and vehicles.
Supposedly, under a statute known as the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019, we are faced with a 2030 deadline to get some 70% of our electricity from “renewables.” Currently the percent of our electricity that we get from these “renewables” is around 44%, and almost half of that comes from the gigantic waterfall known as Niagara Falls. Without another Niagara Falls on the horizon, theoretically we should be building vast fields of wind turbines and solar panels to meet the statutory mandates; but that effort has stalled out, and the costs of wind and solar generation, and of backup to make the grid run all the time, have barely started to show up in consumer bills. Nor have various big new long-distance transmission projects yet come into consumer bills.
But meanwhile, the big utilities have come forward with large demands for rate increases. So why the need for big rate increases if not from new generators or long-distance transmission? The answer is that the rate increases mainly relate to the portion of the consumer bills referred to as the “delivery” charge, as opposed to the charge for generation. The utilities seek funds to add delivery infrastructure like substations, transformers, and cables to deliver vastly increased amounts of electricity for things like vehicle charging stations (for both cars and trucks) and for the electrification of building heat.
In upstate New York, a utility called National Grid has been petitioning the regulator for a large electricity rate increase, mostly to support these kinds of upgrades to the delivery infrastructure. The service territory of National Grid in upstate New York covers the region between about Syracuse and Albany, and from there North to the Canadian border. After prolonged negotiations, the regulator (Public Service Commission) and National Grid entered into a “settlement” a few days ago on August 14. Here is the PSC release describing the settlement. Basically, the PSC congratulates itself on beating back a much larger rate increase originally sought by National Grid. (The headline is “PSC Dramatically Reduces National Grid’s Rate Request.”). But if you read on you find that they still agreed to a very large increase. The release makes clear that most of the increase relates to the delivery infrastructure:
National Grid had sought a base delivery increase of $509.6 million (25.5 percent delivery or 10.4 percent total revenue) and $156.5 million (29.7 percent delivery or 15.7 percent total revenue) for electric and gas, respectively for one year. Instead, the Commission adopted a joint proposal establishing levelized increases, on a percentage basis, to the company’s electric revenues of $167.3 million in the first year, $297.4 million in the second year, and $243.4 million in the third year.
Basically, they spread NG’s requested increase out over three years; but it still comes to almost a 30% jump on the delivery side by the time it all kicks in.
Governor Hochul then issued a release expressing extreme displeasure:
While I appreciate that the New York Public Service Commission worked to significantly lower the outrageously high initial rate proposals, it’s still not enough. I have been crystal clear that utilities must make ratepayer affordability the priority.
Well, Governor Hochul, good luck trying to blame the utility, but you are the one with all the electric vehicle mandates and incentives and subsidies, thus calling on the utility to provide all this new infrastructure. In all likelihood few will ever buy the electric vehicles, and nobody will ever generate the extra electricity from wind and sun, and thus this infrastructure will mostly be wasted. But can the utility just refuse to make itself ready to meet your ridiculous mandate?
And meanwhile down here in New York City, our utility Con Edison is requesting almost as large a rate increase, again focused on the delivery portion of the bill, and on local infrastructure upgrades necessary to support increased electricity demand. In the City, the increased demand is anticipated to come both from electric vehicles (per the state mandates) and from building electrification (based on a City building electrification mandate known as Local Law 97). It is likely that the result of the Con Edison rate proceeding will be a settlement agreement comparable to what occurred in the National Grid case a few days ago.
I am an intervenor in this Con Edison rate case, and in recent days I have actually been personally participating — in a minor way — in the settlement negotiations. My co-intervenors and I are objecting to any rate increases based on adding infrastructure to support building and vehicle electrification unless and until the additional electricity generation capacity has been built to support these mandates. (There is no chance that this additional capacity, supposedly wind and solar generators, will actually be built.)
The New York Post has a lead editorial today summarizing how the green energy madness is coming around to bite New Yorkers in their pocketbooks. Excerpt:
New York’s state Public Service Commission just OK’d big National Grid rate increases that’ll hike many upstate utility bills by $600 a year — fueling outrage Democrats will soon feel. Downstate, Con Edison is seeking an 11.4% hike to electric bills and 13.3% gas hike — largely thanks to green-energy mandates that Gov. Kathy Hochul embraced along with the rest of the party. The “climate agenda” is delivering pain we’ve long warned of, in New York and New Jersey.
If we ever get to the point of building dozens of gigawatts of wind and solar generation capacity, and enough backup and storage to make them work to support a grid, that would cause electricity rates to multiply by a factor of five or ten or more. We are a long way from that. But here we are just trying to add enough substations and transformers to support 30-50% vehicle electrification, and a comparable amount of building electrification, and it is causing politicians to start to scream. How much more of this will it take before we quit?
New York’s New Equal Rights Act Will Weaken Parental Rights, Critics Say
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | November 12, 2024
New York voters last week approved Proposition 1, a ballot measure that adds abortion rights to the state constitution and bars discrimination based on pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes.
The measure, passed with 61.9% of the vote, also protects against discrimination based on age, gender identity or sexual orientation, according to CBS News, which said, “Opponents say the vague language opens up a can of worms that could cause more harm than good.”
Indeed, some legal experts argue that instead of promoting equality, the Equal Rights Act, as the measure is officially known, enshrines discrimination and strips away parental rights.
Opponents of the amendment argue it would “open the door to men using women’s bathrooms and transgender athletes to compete on sports teams that match their gender identities” and “allow minors to get abortions without parental consent.”
New York attorney Bobbie Ann Cox campaigned against Proposition 1. She said the amendment was “unnecessary” because “anti-discrimination laws are already in place.”
Cox told The Defender :
“No new rights were endowed by Proposition 1. In fact, it is the opposite, because Proposition 1 actually restricts our rights. The language is clear: It says we (the people) are not allowed to ‘discriminate’ against the named classes, nor are our firms, corporations or organizations.
“This gives the government license to control us, our firms, corporations and organizations — because who do you think will determine what is deemed ‘discrimination’ or ‘hate speech?’ The government will.”
Michael Kane, founder of Teachers for Choice, told The Defender that Proposition 1 is state lawmakers’ response to grassroots efforts supporting medical freedom and parental rights during the COVID-19 pandemic. He said the state needed this law because “Teachers for Choice and our coalition partners have stopped all assaults on medical freedom and parental rights in Albany for the past five years.”
Kane added:
“Because of that, a group of Democrats from New York City put forth this ‘Equal Rights Amendment’ and rolled their wishlist of legislation into it, to go straight to the New York Constitution — because they knew they couldn’t get any of these crazy pieces of legislation passed in a real democratic process.”
Cox said the amendment “will result in complete totalitarian control” over New Yorkers. “It will flip our norms upside down, and give the government license to abolish our freedoms of speech, assembly, religion, family units and so on,” she said. “It is a Trojan Horse of the most epic kind.”
Kane said that despite the many protections the amendment promises, there are “no protections in Proposition 1 for health freedom, religious freedom or parental rights.”
Instead, the amendment “can and will be used to get parents out of the picture of all medical decisions for children,” Kane said. “This is why Proposition 1 says ‘you can’t discriminate’ against anyone based on ‘age.’”
Amendment gives government ‘power to discriminate against anyone’
The measure amends Article 1, Section 11 of the New York State Constitution on the equal protection of laws, which bans discrimination on the basis of “race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, creed, religion, or sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.”
The second paragraph of the amendment adds:
“Nothing in this section shall invalidate or prevent the adoption of any law, regulation, program, or practice that is designed to prevent or dismantle discrimination on the basis of a characteristic listed in this section, nor shall any characteristic listed in this section be interpreted to interfere with, limit, or deny the civil rights of any person based upon any other characteristic identified in this section.”
According to Cox, this language enshrines reverse discrimination, giving the government “the power to discriminate against anyone they want, at any time, for any reason.” She also criticized the measure’s “vague” language.
“The language of Proposition 1 is vague and extremely broad,” Cox said. “It’s unconstitutional to have overly broad laws for this very reason — the true intent cannot be known, which then leads to courts making the decisions piecemeal, which causes inconsistencies and massive confusion.”
Cox said the ballot did not provide voters with the full text of the amendment. Voters saw only a summary that described the measure as an amendment that “would protect against unequal treatment.”
Writing on Substack last month, Cox called the summary “a total sham, as it doesn’t even give the whole story.” She said the amendment “will unleash a massive tidal wave of chaos upon our citizenry, upon normalcy, and upon all that we hold dear in our society,”
She said she believes the amendment will weaken parental rights, abolish girls’ sports and single-sex spaces, legalize reverse discrimination and result in the “chilling of free speech.”
Cox said claims that the amendment protects the right to an abortion were a “lie.” She said the word “abortion” did not appear on the ballot and that the measure differs from laws passed in other states that explicitly make clear what the state’s laws are regarding abortion.
New amendment to face constitutional challenges
According to CBS News, New York joined seven other states that have “passed measures protecting abortion rights” after the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
Organizations including the New York Civil Liberties Union and the League of Women Voters of New York supported the measure.
Opponents of the amendment had difficulty overcoming support from these groups and key state officials, including Attorney General Letitia James.
Cox told The Defender she has formed a task force to explore legal avenues for challenging the amendment. She said policies the new administration may introduce might facilitate legal actions challenging the amendment.
“It’ll depend on what is done by Trump’s administration and how it is done,” Cox said.
Kane said the amendment “can and will be challenged as being a violation of the federal Constitution.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
US government ‘has declared war on me’ – Scott Ritter
RT | August 8, 2024
Former US Marine turned journalist Scott Ritter has accused the US government of committing an “act of intimidation” against him for his journalistic work after federal agents and state police executed a search warrant on his house in New York State on Wednesday.
In a video statement on his Telegram channel on Thursday, Ritter, who is also a former UN weapons inspector, said that the warrant was based upon suspicion that he had violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
The authorities appear to be “primarily concerned” about his “relationship” with RT and the news agency Sputnik, he added.
According to Ritter, the FBI agents accused him of working “on behalf of the Russian government” and receiving “directions” from the two Russian outlets while being compensated for his contributions.
Ritter stressed that he was not a foreign agent and pointed out that he gets compensation from “any journalistic entity” he provides content for.
Ritter also dismissed as “absurd in the extreme” the accusation that his articles and podcasts were “designed to manipulate the opinion of the American people on behalf of the Russian government.”
He called the raid “an act of intimidation by the US government designed to have a chilling effect” and to discourage him from further cooperation with the Russian-based media outlets, Ritter said.
”There isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that I will back down because I’m doing nothing wrong,” he stated, adding that he is “an American citizen, holding my government accountable and exercising the rights given to me by the Constitution.”
Ritter went on to say that the US government has “declared war” on him, on his ability to write, to speak, and to interact with the American people and the broader international audience.
”It’s not a war I plan on losing,” Ritter concluded.
Ritter is a former US Marine Corps major who served as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq during the 1990s. He opposed the 2003 US invasion, insisting that Saddam Hussein’s government did not have weapons of mass destruction, as Washington claimed at the time.
According to the US Department of Justice, the US Foreign Agents Registration Act “requires certain agents” to disclose their relationship with “foreign principals,” thus “informing the public on the identity of persons engaging in political activities on behalf of foreign governments.”
Similar legislation adopted in Russia has been harshly criticized in the West, branded as “oppressive” and a “crackdown on opposition.”
US is a police state persecuting its citizens
By Lucas Leiroz | August 8, 2024
The US government continues its violent persecution of all citizens who express opinions contrary to the foreign policy of the White House. Once again, the country’s authorities unjustifiably harassed military analyst Scott Ritter, raiding his house under the allegation that Ritter is a “foreign agent.” Apparently, any American citizen who disagrees with the policy of war with Russia is considered a “spy” by the government, which shows how Washington is becoming an antidemocratic police state.
The FBI and the New York State Police raided Ritter’s house in Bethlehem Township, south of Albany. The agents remained inside Scott’s house for about five hours, collecting materials they considered suspicious. More than two dozen boxes were removed from the place by the police containing various items meant for investigation, including several electronic devices.
The police presented a search and seizure warrant based on the Foreign Agents Restriction Act. In practice, this means that for the American police, Scott Ritter is officially a “Russian asset.” The investigations are certainly intended to find some kind of incriminating content that would allow a formal charge of espionage and conspiracy against the American state.
This is not the first time that Scott Ritter has been attacked by the authorities of his own country. The analyst has already lost his passport and the right to leave the US after the American police forcibly escorted him off a plane when he was about to go to the Russian Federation in June. Ritter had been invited to participate in the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, where he was expected to give a talk on a panel about multipolarity and geopolitics. However, shortly after boarding the plane, American guards confiscated his passport without providing any explanation, which is a serious violation of basic individual rights.
Now, with the FBI’s harassment, Scott’s situation is even more complicated. Without a passport, he is unable to leave the country to seek political asylum in another state. Having to remain on American soil, he is likely to be increasingly targeted by Washington’s authorities, who have become well-known for implementing a method similar to psychological torture to coerce citizens who disobey the country’s tacit “rule” of supporting the White House’s aggressive foreign policy.
Ritter is a former officer of the US Marine Corps, having served as an intelligence agent specializing in missiles during the Gulf War. He became known for his work as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq, having been an opponent of the US invasion of the country. At the time, Ritter repeatedly stated that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, and therefore the US military action was unjustified. The judicial and police harassment against him began in the early 2000s precisely in retaliation for his pro-peace stance.
In the same vein, having studied Russian affairs academically, Ritter is deeply familiar with the history of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis and has been a vocal critic of the US policy of arming Kiev since 2022. He advocates a peaceful policy between the US and Russia and the establishment of mutually favorable conditions for coexistence. In the same vein, Ritter has used his military expertise to debunk some fallacious Western narratives about the situation on the battlefield.
Since 2022, he has been pointing out how Russian troops maintain complete control over the military situation, with Ukraine having no chance of reversing this scenario. Ritter’s work is seen as a threat by the Western propaganda machine, which constantly needs to spread lies to convince public opinion to continue supporting Ukraine. Ritter’s situation has become even worse since October 2023, when he spoke out against Israel’s violent incursions into Gaza and has become a critic of US support for Netanyahu. The persecution of Ritter has escalated since then, with both the pro-Ukraine and pro-Israel lobbies now targeting him.
In fact, what is happening to Ritter is just one example of how the US is becoming a police state. Democracy and freedom of speech are no longer part of American political principles – at least not on a practical level, being just pointless rhetoric. Unfortunately, Ritter is likely to face even more police and judicial abuse, since without a passport he has no way of leaving the country to escape persecution. The same fate awaits any American citizen who dares to publicly criticize the international crimes committed by Washington.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
Escape from New York?
By Stephen Lendman | June 2, 2021
Is the Big Apple headed toward becoming something like what’s portrayed in the 1981 Hollywood Escape from New York science fiction film?
That plot involves a future crime-ridden USA that transformed New York City into a maximum security prison, trapping residents.
Empire State governance is becoming draconian on all things covid.
Passed by New York state senators in April, oppressive NY State Assembly Bill A416 states the following:
“Upon determining by clear and convincing evidence (sic) that the health of others is or may be endangered (sic), the governor may order the removal and/or detention of such…person(s) or group of such persons by issuing a single order (sic).”
“Identifying such persons either by name or by a reasonably specific description of the individuals or group being detained,” they shall be indefinitely be held “in a medical facility or other appropriate private facility.”
The measure targets individuals unwilling to self-inflict harm by getting jabbed for covid and risking irreversible harm.
Under federal law, experimental drugs cannot be mandated.
The Nuremberg Code requires voluntary consent on matters relating to health.
If the above measure is enacted into state or federal law, the health, well-being and safety of affected Americans will be jeopardized more greatly than ever before in US history.
Last March, New York Governor Cuomo announced the launch of Excelsior Pass — a digital health passport to push mass-jabbing with hazardous, experimental, unapproved covid drugs.
“Attend sporting events, arts performances and more,” according to promotional material for the scheme, adding:
“Excelsior Pass supports a safe reopening of New York (sic) by providing a free, fast and secure way to present digital proof of (covid jabs) or negative test results.”
“Think of it as a mobile airline boarding pass, but for proving you received a (covid jab) or negative test.”
Along with pushing hazardous covid mass-jabbing, the Excelsior Pass scheme may be step one toward requiring passport proof of the above for employment, education, air travel, other public transportation, hotel reservations, restaurant dining, in-store shopping, attending a sporting event, and other social interactions.
No proof, no access to the above, no normal daily routines, social isolation instead like lepers.
Is that where things are heading in New York and elsewhere in the US? Will federal legislation mandate it?
On Friday, GOP Senator Ted Cruz went the other way, announcing that he’ll introduce legislation to ban vaccine passports — called the No Vaccine Passports Act.
“(T)here’s a real potential for government overreach,” he warned, adding:
“I don’t believe anyone should be forced to” be jabbed for covid. “It should be your personal choice.”
“You should make the choice based on your health, based on the decisions you want.”
Promoting covid jabs as safe and effective is diabolical mass deception to harm maximum numbers of people.
Excelsior Pass was the first of its kind introduced in the US.
Developed in cahoots with IBM, the company said New York “is modeling for the rest of the country how new, technology-enabled approaches can help safely reinvigorate economies (sic) while also striving to protect public health (sic).”
Surveillance Technology Oversight Project executive director Albert Cahn expressed concern about the scheme, saying:
“I have more detailed technical documentation about the privacy impact of nearly every app on my phone than I do for this health pass,”adding:
“IBM and the governor are using lots of buzzwords, but they’re not explaining their cryptographic model.”
“They’re not explaining the security, implementation.”
“(T)he pass itself is incredibly revealing” by disclosing people’s health status and other personal data.
Among establishment media, the NYT is a leading source of Big Lies and mass deception on all things covid.
On June 1, the broadsheet promoted Excelsior passes, saying the following:
“This magic ticket (sic) is New York State’s first and only government-issued vaccine passport in the country, accessible, for now, only to people who have been (jabbed for covid) in the state,” adding:
“About 1.1 million Excelsior passes had been downloaded onto phones and computers as of last week, according to the state.”
Perhaps dark forces in New York and nationwide may mandate covid-jabbed passport proof ahead for access to most everything essential for normal social, business, and other interactions as things were pre-2020.
As of late May, numerous US states either partially or entirely banned issuance of vaccine passports, or rejected their mandatory use for normal access to facilities or events.
They include Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.
Many states haven’t indicated support or opposition to use covid passports so far.
Most likely, they’ll all go one way or the other on this issue ahead.
So far in New York, most business establishments don’t require proof of being jabbed for covid to enter.
A number of sports, other entertainment and arts venues went the other way.
Fraud is another issue. Surveillance Technology Oversight Project executive Cahn quoted above said he downloaded someone else’s Excelsior Pass in 11 minutes from information posted on social media, adding:
“(A)s much as we want a magic piece of software to be able to tell us whether the person next to us is (jabbed for covid), these apps really can’t.”
“At the end of the day, it’s largely built on trust.”
The bottom line is that we’ve been lied to and mass-deceived on virtually all things covid since the designation came from renaming seasonal flu.
Featured Video
No More Ukraine Proxy War? You’re a Traitor!
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The lies about the 1967 war are still more powerful than the truth
By Alan Hart | June 4, 2012
In retrospect it can be seen that the 1967 war, the Six Days War, was the turning point in the relationship between the Zionist state of Israel and the Jews of the world (the majority of Jews who prefer to live not in Israel but as citizens of many other nations). Until the 1967 war, and with the exception of a minority of who were politically active, most non-Israeli Jews did not have – how can I put it? – a great empathy with Zionism’s child. Israel was there and, in the sub-consciousness, a refuge of last resort; but the Jewish nationalism it represented had not generated the overtly enthusiastic support of the Jews of the world. The Jews of Israel were in their chosen place and the Jews of the world were in their chosen places. There was not, so to speak, a great feeling of togetherness. At a point David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding father and first prime minister, was so disillusioned by the indifference of world Jewry that he went public with his criticism – not enough Jews were coming to live in Israel.
So how and why did the 1967 war transform the relationship between the Jews of the world and Israel? … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Bill Francis on Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate… Sheree Sheree on I was canceled by three newspa… Richard Ong on Czech–Slovak alignment signals… John Edward Kendrick on Colonel Jacques Baud & Nat… eddieb on Villains of Judea: Ronald Laud… rezjiekc on Substack Imposes Digital ID Ch… loongtip on US strikes three vessels in Ea… eddieb on An Avoidable Disaster Steve Jones on For Israel, The Terrorist Atta… cleversensationally3… on Over Half of Germans Feel Unab… loongtip on Investigation Into U.S. Milita… loongtip on Zelensky’s Impossible De…
Aletho News- No More Ukraine Proxy War? You’re a Traitor!
- Sexual Blackmail Makes the World Go ‘Round
- Powerful Israeli Strikes on South Lebanon and Bekaa
- UAE-backed militia in Yemen reaches out to Israel for alliance against ‘common foes’: Report
- The UAE’s reverse trajectory: From riches to rags
- Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate Speech” Laws Linking Censorship to Terror Prevention
- Majority of Belgians oppose theft of Russian assets – poll
- Czech–Slovak alignment signals growing dissatisfaction with Brussels’ authoritarianism
- Colonel Jacques Baud & Nathalie Yamb Sanctioned: EU Goes Soviet
- Who gets to be a hostage? The language that legitimises Palestinian captivity
- If Americans Knew
- Amnesty: ‘Utterly preventable’ Gaza flood tragedy must mobilize global action to end Israel’s genocide
- Israel Propagandists Are Uniformly Spouting The Exact Same Line About The Bondi Beach Shooting
- Ha’aretz: Free the Palestinian Activist Who Dared to Document Israel’s Crimes in the West Bank
- Garbage Is Poisoning Gaza
- Palestinian journalist recounts rape and torture in Israeli prison
- Gaza is crumbling, but its people persevere – Not a Ceasefire Day 69
- Pro-Israel billionaire Miriam Adelson green-lights a Trump 3rd term
- Australians Being Massacred Shouldn’t Bother Us More Than Palestinians Being Massacred
- Garbage, stench, sewage, and rats plague Gaza – Not a Ceasefire Day 68
- The Zionist Billionaire Circle Hiding in Plain Sight
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: 8000 Years Ago Relative Sea Level Was 30 Meters Higher Than Today Across East Antarctica
- The Wind Energy Paradox: “Why More Wind Turbines Don’t Always Mean More Power”
- New Study Reopens Questions About Our Ability To Meaningfully Assess Global Mean Temperature
- Dialing Back The Panic: German Physics Prof Sees No Evidence Of Climate Tipping Points!
- Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon Challenges The Climate Consensus … It’s The Sun, Not CO2
- Regional Cooling Since The 1980s Has Driven Glacier Advance In The Karakoram Mountains
- Greenland Petermann Glacier Has Grown 30 Kilometers Since 2012!
- New Study: Temperature-Driven CO2 Outgassing Explains 83 Percent Of CO2 Rise Since 1959
- Climate Extremists Ordered By Hamburg Court To Pay €400,000 In Damages
- More Evidence NE China Is Not Cooperating With The Alarmist Global Warming Narrative
Aletho News 