Solution Series Event Encore

Digital Discrimination & Historical Solutions




Businesses That Support Vaccine Passports, Support Discrimination

Big THANK YOU to Kevin Jenkins, Sheila Ealey, Attorney Tricia Lindsay, and Dr. Michelle Gamble for sharing their wisdom in this CC’21 Solution Series Event.

It’s 1949…World War II is over…you’ve returned home a hero after serving your country for more than a year by risking your life to defeat Nazi Germany and the Axis Countries. Eugenicists hell bent on enslaving the world and exterminating all people deemed unworthy and unclean.

Imagine returning home a hero and then being told you must ride on the back of the bus, earn a fraction of what you should, drink from ‘Colored Only’ water fountains, and suffer in a country where your sacrifices never guaranteed you equality under the Constitution…and all because of your skin color.

To be Black in America is to know what discrimination FEELS like from a very young age. Discrimination is an ugly feeling that many businesses have the ability to defeat before it takes hold in our home. By simply saying NO I WILL NOT DISCRIMINATE against any customer. NO I WILL NOT SUPPORT VACCINE PASSPORTS…WE ALL WIN.

We defeated race-based discrimination in 1954 through Brown v. The Board of Education and took another step forward with Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Let’s make sure we continue to move forward by using the lessons of our recent past to ensure the old normal (discrimination) doesn’t become our new normal ever again.



History Worth Remembering

WWII - The 761st - The Black American Battalion That Liberated Nazi Concentration Camps

The Montgomery Bus Boycott

Brown v. Board of Education

v is for victory

If you enjoy reading good news, you deserve to read this article by Dr. Henry Ealy

Referencing this Judicial Opinion by the Honorable Kurt D. Engelhardt

Here are select quotes from the opinion entered by the Honorable Kurt D. Engelhardt, an American who proves that there are still good people in positions of authority in our great nation:

“The Mandate is staggeringly overbroad. Applying to 2 out of 3 private-sector employees in America, in workplaces as diverse as the country itself, the Mandate fails to consider what is perhaps the most salient fact of all: the ongoing threat of COVID-19 is more dangerous to some employees than to other employees. All else equal, a 28 year-old trucker spending the bulk of his workday in the solitude of his cab is simply less vulnerable to COVID-19 than a 62 year-old prison janitor. Likewise, a naturally immune unvaccinated worker is presumably at less risk than an unvaccinated worker who has never had the virus. The list goes on, but one constant remains – the Mandate fails almost completely to address, or even respond to, much of this reality and common sense. – Page 13

A good judge that understands natural immunity, situational context, and relies on common sense…what a novel concept. Way to go Judge Engelhardt!

“We begin by stating the obvious. The  Occupational Safety and Health Act,  which  created  OSHA, was  enacted  by  Congress  to assure  Americans “safe   and   healthful   working   conditions and   to   preserve   our   human resources.”  See 29  U.S.C.  § 651 (statement  of  findings  and declaration  of purpose   and   policy).   It   was   not-and   likely   could   not   be,   under the Commerce  Clause  and  nondelegation  doctrine-intended  to  authorize  a workplace   safety administration   in   the   deep   recesses   of   the   federal bureaucracy to make sweeping pronouncements on matters of public health affecting every member of society in the profoundest of ways. Cf. Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. HHS, 141 S. Ct. 2485, 2488-90 (2021) (per curiam).


On the dubious assumption that the Mandate does pass constitutional muster-which we need not decide today – it is nonetheless fatally flawed on its own terms. Indeed, the Mandate’s strained prescriptions combine to make it the rare government pronouncement that is both overinclusive (applying to employers and employees in virtually all industries and workplaces in America, with little attempt to account for the obvious differences between the risks facing, say, a security guard on a lonely night shift, and a meatpacker working shoulder to shoulder in a cramped warehouse) and underinclusive (purporting to save employees with 99 or more coworkers from a “grave danger” in the workplace, while making no attempt to shield employees with 98 or fewer coworkers from the very same threat). The Mandate’s stated impetus – a purported “emergency” that the entire globe has now endured for nearly two years, and which OSHA itself spent nearly two months responding to – is unavailing as well. And its promulgation grossly exceeds OSHA’s statutory authority. – Page 6


“But the Mandate at issue here is anything but a “delicate[] exercise[] ” of this “extraordinary power.” Cf. Pub. Citizen, 702 F.2d at 1155. Quite the opposite, rather than a delicately handled scalpel, the Mandate is a one-size fits-all sledgehammer that makes hardly any attempt to account for differences in workplaces (and workers) that have more than a little bearing on workers’ varying degrees of susceptibility to the supposedly “grave danger” the Mandate purports to address.” – Page 8


“Letter from Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Sec’y, OSHA, to Richard L. Trumka, President, AFL-CIO at 3 (May 29, 2020) [hereinafter Sweatt Letter] (acknowledging as a general matter that it “would not be necessary for OSHA to issue an ETS to protect workers from infectious diseases” because “OSHA lacks evidence to conclude that all infectious diseases to which employees may be exposed at a workplace constitute a ‘grave danger’ for which an ETS is an appropriate remedy”). Because it is generally “arbitrary or capricious” to “depart from a prior policy sub silentio,” agencies must typically provide a “detailed explanation” for contradicting a prior policy, particularly when the “prior policy has engendered serious reliance interests.” FCC v. Fox, 556 U.S. at 515. OSHA ‘s reversal here strains credulity, as does its pretextual basis. Such shortcomings are all hallmarks of unlawful agency actions.” – Page 13

Such shortcomings are hallmarks of unlawful agency actions as noted by the Honorable Kurt D. Engelhardt. Essentially, Joseph Biden attempted to use an emergency provision called an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) to transform OSHA into the new Gestapo (Secret State Police). The ETS is something OSHA has attempted to use only 10 times in the last 50 years. Six were challenged in court and only one survived judicial review, and never in an attempt to mandate so-called vaccines.

Essentially, the Biden Administration had no Constitutional authority to mandate this human experiment upon the American people, so his administration attempted to break the law and outsource it to OHSA and employers to do so. Our government breaking the law sound familiar?

If so, that’s because people within the CDC, FDA, HHS, NVSS, NIAID, OSHA, and far too many elected and appointed officials have been unlawful in their actions from the very beginning when they declared without evidence, that the origins of the SARS-COV-2 virus were zoonotic. The deception only grew into clear fraud when the CDC changed how death certificates were recorded, but only for COVID and without informing the Federal Register of this proposed change as they are required to do by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), and Information Quality Act (IQA).

Here’s what the Honorable Kurt D. Engelhardt had to say about the Federal Register.

“The statute empowering OSHA allows OSHA to bypass typical notice-and-comment proceedings for six months by providing “for an emergency temporary standard to take immediate effect upon publication in the Federal Register” if it “determines (A) that employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards, and (B) that such emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger.” 29 U.S.C. § 655(c)(l).” – Page 8

Why is this so important?

It’s important because even in an emergency situation, federal agencies are required to report any changes, particularly for data collection and analysis, to the Federal Register in order to initiate federal oversight and agency transparency, even if they attempt to bypass public comment using emergency provisions to do so.

Why is this important?

It’s important because neither the CDC, FDA, nor HHS filed the March 24th, 2020 COVID Alert No. 2 or the April 14th, 2020 adoption of the CSTE position paper with the Federal Register and we have over 67 pages of screen shots to prove it. Essentially, people within all three of these agencies colluded to defraud the American people by unilaterally enacting rule changes, without federal oversight or public comment, in violation of at least 3 major federal laws.

These facts are the subject of our ongoing Grand Jury Petition currently being reviewed by the Department of Justice. You can educate yourself and join the more than 100,000 Americans that have signed the Grand Jury Petition and help us apply peaceful pressure to ensure that justice is served to those that deserve it.

Let’s conclude with a few remaining quotes from the Honorable Kurt D. Engelhardt’s post-ruling opinion. Judge Engelhardt did such a thorough job of citing law and case precedents to substantiate this ruling and pave the way for the Supreme Court to uphold the ruling as well.

It lastly bears noting that the Mandate raises serious constitutional concerns


…the Mandate likely exceeds the federal government’s authority under the Commerce Clause because it regulates noneconomic inactivity that falls squarely within the States’ police power. A person’s choice to remain unvaccinated and forgo regular testing is noneconomic inactivity…


…concerns over separation of powers principles cast doubt over the Mandate’s assertion of virtually unlimited power to control individual conduct under the guise of a workplace regulation. As Judge Duncan points out, the major questions doctrine confirms that the Mandate exceeds the bounds of OSHA’s statutory authority


It is clear that a denial of the petitioners’ proposed stay would do them irreparable harm. For one, the Mandate threatens to substantially burden the liberty interests 21 of reluctant individual recipients put to a choice between their job(s) and their jab(s). For the individual petitioners, the loss of constitutional freedoms “for even minimal periods of time … unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”).” – Pages 16-19

disclaimer & compliance

***All Information Shared On This Website Is Public Domain & For Educational Purposes. Information Can Be Shared Freely With The Understanding That All Statements Have Not Been Evaluated By The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Go Here For A Current List Of The FDA’s Position On Various Therapeutic Interventions. We Are Required To Inform You That Any Information Presented On This Site (Including Within The Videos) Is Not Intended To Advise, Diagnose, Treat, Cure Or Prevent Any Disease Including COVID. Additionally, We Are Required To Inform You That Any Information Presented On This Site (Including Within the Videos) Is Not Intended To Constitute Legal Advice Or Service. Always Consult With Qualified Licensed Medical Professionals & Legal Experts Before Enacting Any Information Presented Herein.***

***Please Be Aware That At No Time Will We Offer Advice, Guidance, Or Direction With Respect To Whether Or Not An Individual Should Or Should Not Receive COVID Inoculations Still In Clinical Trial According To The National Institutes Of Health (NIH). We Encourage All People To Review Available Safety & Efficacy Data, Published By The CDC Through The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) And The CDC’s COVID Data Tracker, With Their Trusted Healthcare Team And Make The Decision That Is Right For Them. We Support Every Individual’s Rights As Patients To Agree To Or Decline Any Medical Procedure As Stated In The American Medical Association’s Code Of Medical Ethics 1.1.3(d).***

***In A Transparent Effort To Be In Full Compliance With The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Regarding Prevention, Treatment, & Deceptive Practices (15 U.S. Code § 57b & Section 19 of the FTC Act), We Are Required To Notify You That The Information Presented On This Website Is A Collection Of Peer-Reviewed Empirical Evidence, But Has Not Yet Been Evaluated By The FDA For Safety & Efficacy. None Of The Information Provided Is Intended To Replace The Care And Supervision Of Qualified Licensed Medical Professional Or The Legal Advice Of Licensed Attorneys. Additionally In Full Disclosure, We Do Not Endorse Any Products, Companies Or Services.***

Beyond The Con - Grand Jury Initiative

Join The Fight For Freedom & Find Out How Much Power You Really Possess!

Contact us

Copyright © 2021-2024 Beyond The Con & The Grand Jury Initiative Is Sponsored By The Energetic Health Institute For Educational Purposes.