Two New Wins in Religious Exemption Lawsuits Add to String of Recent Victories
An appeals court on Monday ruled in favor of a former Philadelphia assistant district attorney who said she was wrongfully denied a religious exemption for the COVID-19 vaccine and subsequently fired when she didn’t get vaccinated.
On Tuesday, the Connecticut Supreme Court sent a case challenging Connecticut’s school vaccine religious exemption policy back to the Superior Court.
In addition to these two decisions, since May at least 10 appellate courts have issued decisions in favor of employees who sued their employers over COVID-19 religious or moral exemptions actions or policies.
‘Religious rights to refuse unwanted vaccination must be respected’
In April 2022, Rachel Spivack sued the City of Philadelphia and her former boss, District Attorney Larry Krasner, alleging he violated her First Amendment rights and the Commonwealth’s Religious Freedom Protection Act when he denied her COVID-19 vaccine religious exemption while allowing other types of exemptions.
The lower court sided with Krasner’s office and dismissed the case. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit this week reversed the lower court’s decision and sent the case back to the lower court for trial.
“We are grateful that the Appeals Court recognized that these important issues deserve a jury’s consideration,” attorney Lea Patterson, who argued Spivack’s case before the court, said in a press release. “No American should lose her job for living according to her sincerely held religious beliefs.”
During the pandemic, as an independently elected official Krasner could implement a series of policies governing COVID-19 mitigation measures in his office that were more restrictive than those instituted by the city.
Krasner’s office issued a vaccine mandate for all eligible employees in August 2021, about a month before Spivack, a non-unionized employee, began working there.
Spivack sought a religious exemption based on her Orthodox Jewish beliefs, submitting a letter from her rabbi and providing a detailed explanation of her religious beliefs, as per office policy.
Krasner said his office changed its policy between August 2021 and January 2022, deciding to categorically deny all religious exemptions without individual assessment.
He argued the law allowed him to deny exemptions based on religious beliefs if they created an undue burden on the office. However, whether he conducted individual assessments is one of the facts disputed in the case.
Krasner’s policy did allow a medical exemption for one employee and exemptions for unionized employees whose terms of employment are governed by their union contracts with the city rather than with his office.
However, Spivack was informed in March 2022 that she was denied accommodation in a form letter indicating she did not present a credible claim that her opposition to the vaccine is based on religious beliefs.
Spivack attempted to work with the office to find ways to keep her job without getting vaccinated, offering to mask and test weekly, but the office refused and terminated her employment on April 8, 2022.
Spivack sued Krasner and the city later that month. The District Court that first heard the case granted Krasner’s motion for summary judgment — or a ruling in their favor without a trial — saying there was no evidence his decision was based on religious intolerance.
In its decision issued Monday, the 3rd Circuit disagreed with the lower court, saying there were disputed facts that a jury should resolve.
A reasonable jury could find that Krasner’s comments “evince hostility toward religion that undermines” the neutrality of his office’s policies, or it could also reach the opposite conclusion, the ruling said. Therefore “neither party is entitled to summary judgment on neutrality” and the case should be heard by a jury.
Attorney Ray Flores, who was not involved in the case, told The Defender the decision to send the case back to a jury trial was significant. “When future mandates are being contemplated, universities, the government, the private sector and the military are all on notice that religious rights to refuse unwanted vaccination must be respected.”
‘A victory for religious freedom in Connecticut’
The Connecticut Supreme Court on Tuesday sent a case challenging Connecticut’s school vaccine religious exemption policy back to the Superior Court for further review.
Connecticut law, which requires students to receive certain immunizations before attending school, allows some medical exemptions and, until 2021, also allowed religious exemptions.
However, in 2021 state officials repealed the longstanding religious exemptions from childhood immunization requirements for schools, colleges and daycare facilities.
At the time lawmakers passed the appeal, Connecticut’s statewide school vaccination rate was among the highest in the nation and well above the 95% rate recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Lawmakers said they ended the exemption arguing the percentage of vaccinated kindergarten students was decreasing and the percentage of religious exemptions was growing.
The new rule allowed existing students who already had vaccine exemptions to keep them, but the repeal otherwise applied to all students in the state.
Two Connecticut parents, Keira Spillane and Anna Kehle, in 2021 sued the governor, the heads of the state’s Departments of Education and Public Health, and a local school and board of education, alleging the new policy violated their and their children’s rights to freely exercise religion, to equal protection of the laws and to free public education.
They asked the judge to find the law unconstitutional and to grant a permanent injunction against it.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss the case. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, agreeing with the plaintiffs that their claims regarding their state and constitutionally protected rights were valid.
The defendants appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which reversed part of the lower court’s decision, dismissing five of six counts against the plaintiffs and allowing the school vaccination mandate to remain in place.
However, it sent the case back to the Superior Court to review the plaintiffs’ claims related to Connecticut’s Religious Freedom and Restoration Act.
“It puts under the magnifying glass the need of strict scrutiny. It’s not over yet,” according to Brian Marks, professor of law and public health at the University of New Haven School of Health Sciences, News8 reported.
“Our case has always centered around Connecticut’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act and our firm belief that the removal of the religious exemption is in clear violation thereof,” the plaintiffs’ attorney said.
“This decision is a victory for our plaintiffs and a victory for religious freedom in Connecticut and we look forward to pressing ahead with our injunction motion so that we can get these disenfranchised children back to school while we await our trial.”
Attorney General William Tong said in a statement:
“This merely dismisses most aspects of the challenge while allowing plaintiffs to continue to press one remaining part of their case in state court, where we will aggressively defend the state’s necessary and lawful actions to protect public health.”
‘Just huge’: 10 favorable decisions by 7 circuit courts of appeals in last 3 months
Since May, at least 10 appellate courts have issued decisions in favor of employees who sued their employers over COVID-19 religious or moral exemptions, actions or policies.
Attorney Warner Mendenhall, who wrote about the trend on his Substack, told The Defender, “I’ve been watching the law for a long time, and I’ve never seen something like this.”
“Ten decisions out of seven circuit courts of appeals in the last three months, that’s just huge,” he said.
The 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals have all issued such decisions in the last few months.
The turning tide has major significance for possible future mandates, Mendenhall said.
“They have created a really good foundation for us to build on going forward.” He added that the cases were setting a precedent for exemptions based on reasons of conscience, not only for religious claims.
The series of successes are partially tied to last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of Groff v. DeJoy, Mendenhall said.
In that case, a Christian postal worker sued the United States Postal Service for compelling him to work on Sundays to deliver Amazon packages, despite his sincere religious belief that Sundays should be devoted to worship and rest.
The Supreme Court ruled that if employers seek to claim they cannot provide an accommodation because it would impose undue hardship on the business — as per Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — they must show that the burden “is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.”
“Prior to Groff, the employers only had to show minimal hardship to deny an accommodation for a religious exemption request,” Mendenhall said. The decision shifted the burden onto the employer to show that accommodating someone’s religious or medical exemption requests would cause substantial hardship.
After that decision, he said, people started winning their cases and the value of their settlement claims went up. “It strengthened thousands of cases,” he said.
Each of the cases that appellate courts refused to dismiss and sent back to the lower courts to be heard “has something to say that’s important,” Mendenhall said.
For example, in Doe v. Board of Regents of the University of Colorado, students who were denied religious exemptions sought an injunction against the university’s vaccine mandate while their case against the university proceeded in court.
A lower court denied their injunction but the 10th Circuit in May found they are likely to win their case and granted the injunction. In that case, Mendenhall said, they are arguing an employer cannot disqualify a claim by finding inconsistencies in a person’s belief.
“The only issue,” he said, “is whether they are sincere.”
In another example, a lawsuit challenging the Los Angeles Unified School District’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate will proceed after the 9th Circuit in June ruled the school district misapplied the precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court Jacobson v. Massachusetts ruling because unlike “traditional” vaccines, the COVID-19 shots don’t prevent infection and transmission.
And this week, in the case of Passarella v. Aspirus the 7th Circuit reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a case against an employer who denied an employee’s religious claims, arguing the claims were based more on safety concerns than on religious beliefs.
The appellate court ruled that religious claims can be linked to secular reasoning and kicked the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.
Mendenhall named several recently finalized exemption cases with the plaintiff victories.
For example, an Alabama court ordered Hank’s Furniture Inc. to pay $110,000 to settle a case where an employee’s request for a religious vaccine exemption was denied and the validity of her beliefs disputed. The company will also have to adopt a new policy that will interpret religious accommodations broadly.
In another example, The U.S. Navy settled a long-standing lawsuit over its COVID-19 vaccine mandate, marking a partial victory for thousands of sailors, including Navy SEALs, who refused the vaccine on religious grounds.
Several other major cases continue to move through courts, including several military class action suits. Thousands of individual employment claims have been settled, Mendenhall wrote.
Olympics Bans Christian Symbols Despite its Own ‘Last Supper’ Parody
Olympic athletes are facing a ban on Christian symbols at the Olympics despite the opening ceremony featuring an obvious parody of a Christian symbol, Leonardo da Vinci’s Last Supper.
On Wednesday, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) forced the Brazilian surfer João Chianca to remove an image of Christ the Redeemer from his surfboard.
“The painting is not authorized in the Olympic Games because Christ is a religious figure,” the athlete posted on social media, though the post was removed shortly afterward. “The Games have strict rules and focus on total neutrality.”
Article 50 of the Olympic Charter states that “no type of political, religious or racial demonstration or propaganda is permitted in any Olympic venue.”
Although the surfer did not keep the post up for long, it elicited indignant responses from his many followers in a short time.
Another Brazilian athlete, Rayssa Leal, used sign language to quote a Bible verse and avoid being called out for breaking Article 50 when she won bronze in the ladies street skateboarding event last Sunday. She made history in the 2021 games in Tokyo when she became the youngest Olympic medalist at age 13. She took bronze in the same event at this year’s games.
Shortly before her performance she turned to the television cameras and said, in sign language, a verse from the Gospel of Saint John: “Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.”
No one knew what to make of her hand movements at first, until someone published on social media a translation and the post went viral.
❗️?? – Rayssa Leal, Brazilian competitor in the skate street competition at the Paris 2024 Olympics, qualified for the finals of the skate street category.
— ??The Informant (@theinformant_x) July 28, 2024
She bypassed the persecution of Christians and rules against religious expression during games and sent a message in sign… pic.twitter.com/ePW5DKNJKg
“When I was very young, I dreamed of becoming an athlete skateboarder,” Leal told reporters on Sunday after taking bronze. “And here I am, with a second Olympic medal from the Games. Once again, thank God I won a medal. I am very happy to be here.”
Archbishop Vigano Calls Wives of Macron and Obama Men in Statement Condemning Sacrilegious Olympics
Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, a former bishop with the Catholic Church who has since been excommunicated, issued a statement condemning the offensive opening ceremony at the Paris Olympics in which he also took the opportunity to mock the wives of Emmanuel Macron and Barack Obama.
In the statement, Vigano wrote: “It is no coincidence that the one sponsoring this revolting carnival is an emissary of the World Economic Forum, Emanuel Macron, who passes off a transvestite as his own wife with impunity, just as Barack Obama is accompanied by a muscular man in a wig.”
Brigitte Macron, who is 71 and has been married to 46-year-old French president Emmanuel Macron since 2007, has long been plagued by rumors that she is a man. The couple met when Emmanuel was just 15 and she was his 39-year-old teacher at a Catholic school in northern France; she has three children with her previous husband who are around his age.
In 2022, she filed a libel complaint against a pair of women who claimed she was previously a man named Jean-Michel. The online rumors claim that Brigitte never existed; instead, her brother Jean-Michel changed genders and assumed this identity. They went on trial last month.
Michelle Obama has also faced similar rumors, which appear to be fueled, at least in part, by her muscular physique, as noted by Vigano. Comedian Joan Rivers famously joked about this when Obama was president, responding to a reporter who asked her if the U.S would ever have a gay president by saying: “We already have it with Obama, so let’s just calm down.”
She then added: “You know Michelle is a tranny. A transgender. We all know.”
Vigano latched onto these rumors in his statement to support his point that faith in God is under attack.
“Satan creates nothing: he only ruins everything. He does not invent: he tampers. And his followers are no different: they humiliate woman’s femininity in order to erase the motherhood that recalls the Virgin Mother; they castrate man’s manhood in order to tear from him the image of God’s fatherhood; they corrupt the little ones in order to kill innocence in them and make them victims of the most abject wokeism,” he wrote.
Moral decay plaguing modern society
He was referring to an offensive scene during the opening ceremony that featured provocatively dressed drag queens parodying “The Last Supper” as painted by Leonardo da Vinci, a biblical event in which Jesus shared a final meal with his apostles before being crucified. DJ and LGBT icon Barbara Butch was at the center of the performance, wearing a haloed headpiece. Butch was surrounded by drag artists, with one backup dancer appearing to have exposed his genitals during the ceremony, which was viewed by families around the world. Three drag queens were also among the torchbearers who brought the Olympic flame by relay from Greece to Paris.
Vigano’s criticism of the Olympics “sacrileges” is just one of many occasions in which he has called out the moral decay of modern society. He was recently excommunicated for being vocal in his conservative beliefs, exposing sexual abuse and other types of corruption in the Catholic Church and calling for Pope Francis to resign after the pontiff promoted LGBT causes.
Several other Catholic bishops also denounced the spectacle, with the Bishops’ Conference of France condemning the “scenes of derision and mockery of Christianity which we deeply deplore” and Malta’s Archbishop, Charles Scicluna, contacting the French ambassador to Malta “expressing my distress and disappointment of many Christians at the gratuitous insult to the Eucharist during the 2024 Paris Olympics.”
BOMBSHELL PROOF: Acting Secret Service Director Caught In Massive Perjury
Southport: The End of the Line
Southport is the end of the line for me, I’m afraid. I refuse to play this game any longer. So “No” Prime Minister Starmer, you do not speak for me—I am not remotely “shocked” that the caravan of mass slaughter has made an unscheduled stop in Southport. “Au contraire,” Your Majesties, I do not find it difficult to “imagine what the families, friends and loved ones are going through” (and doubtless, given time neither will the rest of you). And it’s “Uh-uh” to you too, Home Secretary Cooper, my “thoughts and prayers” already have a prior engagement; resigned to the hope that the “refugees welcome” conniving bastards like you are one day held accountable for the blood on your hands. I’m sick of it all, but mostly I’m sick of the innocent picking up the bar tab for the multicultural piss-up they were denied entry to.
As the tally currently stands, it’s three beautiful princesses dead and a further nine seriously injured at the hands of an unknown savage. The perpetrators of these unholy acts don’t just stick to targeting politicians. It’s innocent children they invariably favour—the younger and purer the better. Slashing the throats of toddlers was about as much of a challenge Syrian “refugee” Abdalmasih Hanoun could stomach in Annecy last June. The Algerian, Riad Bouchaker, made much the same calculation in Parnell Square, Dublin last November. Thus far, pretty much all we know about the bloodbath in Stockport is that we definitely don’t know anything.
We know this because the media and the authorities have assured us of their utter incuriosity. The furthest Merseyside Police were prepared to go was a “17-year-old boy from the village of Banks.” For clarity, they added the following:
The youth, who cannot be named for legal reasons and is originally from Cardiff, moved to the Southport area with his Rwandan parents when he was aged six.
Funnily enough, every Llewelyn Jones I’ve ever met has a remarkably similar story.
Chief Constable Serena Kennedy treated us to the full “I know it looks like terrorism, but we don’t want you to think it’s terrorism – even though we think it’s terrorism” routine:
The investigation is in its early stages, and the motivation for the incident remains unclear. However, Counter-Terrorism Police North West have offered their support to Merseyside Police, as the full circumstances of what has happened are being established. At this moment in time, the investigation is not being treated as terrorist related.
Two children have died and nine have been injured, including six who are in a critical condition, following the stabbings in Southport, Merseyside Police Chief Constable Serena Kennedy said. pic.twitter.com/6DgTTOCTH3
— Talk (@TalkTV) July 29, 2024
Not to be outdone, Councillor Marion Atkinson just went for good old-fashioned gaslighting:
We know this has caused concern and upset in the local community and while there is no immediate threat to the public, we will be providing help and support in the coming days and weeks.
“Concern and upset”’ Marion? “No immediate threat”? Well, I suppose the lad’s gotta break out of clink first, right?
The media meanwhile, were having a field day. “Two children die and nine injured after ‘ferocious’ knife attack in Southport,” smirked The Guardian, as though the adjective “ferocious” was a bit racy for a mere attempted massacre. The BBC went one better: “Two children dead and nine injured in dance workshop” (the “stabbing” part regrettably too long for the web page to include), making it sound like the workshop itself was responsible for the carnage.
Not content with that, BBC News’ Home Affairs Correspondent, Daniel Sandford, was at a loss when quizzed about recent mass stabbings in Britain (Reading, Streatham, London Bridge?), and had to go back to Dunblane 1996. Sure, it was a mass shooting rather than a stabbing, but at least it had the preferred white male perpetrator in the title role:
Dunblane wasn’t a mass stabbing @BBCDanielS , Dunblane was a mass shooting!
— Andrew Roberts ??️??️⚧️ (@AndyMRoberts) July 29, 2024
Please get your facts right and stop the speculation on fatalities and number of fatalities!https://t.co/8lQ8TVORvD pic.twitter.com/NjZsqILL4U
Had it been a white Brit in Southport, we’d have had his name, his age, and his mum’s Reform UK membership card by teatime. Of course, there’s always the danger that the public might overreact and insensitively object to the slaughter or maiming of their daughters. Luckily, seasoned pro and Mayor of Liverpool City Region, Steve Rotheram, urged them not to spread “unconfirmed speculation and false information.”
Question: How do they know it’s “false” if they don’t know what it is yet?
Social media reports should of course be taken with a pinch of salt. But there comes a point when the official line is so corrupt, the alternatives have to be considered. The Spectator writer, Steven Barrett, claims police have contacted him to say that their priority re the stabbings is that “our response is managed.” I find that spectacularly easy to believe.
The Liberal response, on the other hand, does not need management: it’s identical, no matter how disparate the facts. Suppose the assailant turns out to be “Gareth Thomas,” Valleys born and bred. In that case, he’ll be a paid-up member of the far-right faster than you can say “Nigel Farage.” If on the other hand, he turns out to be an asylum seeker, illegal immigrant or Muslim, then it’s the far-right that radicalised him. Win-win!
But even sticking with the official line, we have an enormous problem on our hands. The 17-year-old in question was born in Britain. That’s not quite the “own” the Left thinks it is. Not only then has multiculturalism failed as our ultra-liberal leaders keep telling us, it’s an aggressive cancer that’s metastasising. The fact is that 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants to Britain are more radical than their parents—which means the time bomb is ticking and gets deadlier the longer you leave it.
How did we get to this? Even in my lifetime, Britain is now unrecognisable—and I don’t just mean the demographics. The police will now protect your pronouns but not your person; Tommy Robinson is more likely to have his collar felt than Anjem Choudary; and the architects of Britain’s demise, the Labour Party, have just been re-elected with the largest majority in their history. Something’s got to give.
The Left may simper, “This is no time for knee-jerk reactions.” But they are of course wrong. Knee-jerk reactions are underrated at the best of times, but in response to the attempted mass slaughter of little girls, I’d be tempted to shoot first and ask questions very, very much later.
This is what now needs to happen in Britain with immediate effect:
- The Channel migrant farce needs to end today; no ifs, no buts. Not one, single illegal migrant should make it onto the beach at Dover before he’s thrown back into his dinghy, and towed back to mainland France.
- The asylum backlog needs to be cleared as a priority, with circa 95% rejected rather than accepted.
- The estimated 1.2 million illegal migrants in Britain (those are the ‘official’ figures, mind) need to be rounded up and deported.
- Order needs to be restored on our streets, and that means an end to two-tier policing. The Army can be deployed if necessary.
- Every ghetto, mosque and madrasa from which extremism appears to emanate needs to be investigated, radically overhauled or closed as necessary.
- Any lingering enemies of Britain desirous of committing criminal acts are free to languish at His Majesty’s pleasure. Prisons cut crime and save lives; more can be built.
- The cost of this is obviously immaterial, considering the lives it will save and the already shocking degree of waste in the public purse, but we could certainly make a start with the £15 billion Foreign Aid Budget, Ed Milliband’s £11.6 billion Climate Aid, and Ukraine’s “£3 billion a year as long as it takes.”
Doubtless, a few lefty lawyers, NGOs, world leaders and the ECHR will object to such policies. So what? What are they going to do, invade us?!
As a fresh, incoming Prime Minister, Keir Starmer now has a golden opportunity to get tough on terrorism and put the country back on track, starting with the above as a bare minimum. He won’t do any of it, of course, which is why civil war is regrettably inevitable.
I don’t mean the civil war ten years down the line; I mean the one that’s been waging for years. It’s just that our leaders have convinced us to look the other way, and only one side has been fighting. There is unrest everywhere you look on the streets of Britain: whether it’s pro-Palestine thuggery or the riots in Leicester and Leeds. The difference is, there is suddenly a palpable sense that the British have had enough.
This weekend’s peaceful “We want our country back” demonstration in Trafalgar Square may just have been the calm before the storm. Let’s hope our politicians break the habit of a lifetime, and start prioritising the safety of the British people. If they do not, things are going to get real ugly very soon.
BOMBSHELL PROOF: Acting Secret Service Director Caught In Massive Perjury
BREAKING VIDEO: UN Spokesperson Calls for NATO/UN Troops to Occupy Western Nations to Enforce Lockdowns, Force Injections
On the Sunday show Alex Jones covered video of Peter Hotez calling for global forced inoculation.
Don’t miss:
Desantis Admin Investigates Leftists who Terrorized Christian Family with Fake Abuse Accusations
(LifeSiteNews) — Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is intervening in the case of a Christian military couple who fell victim to an internet harassment campaign that led to false child abuse charges being filed against them.
The Family Freedom Project (FFP) explains that JD and Britney Lott met while serving in the military, and after marrying settled in Lubbock, Texas. Eventually they and their eight children took to traveling the nation, chronicling their travels on Instagram while homeschooling.
Their American Family Road Trip account grew in popularity, but with support also came anonymous online detractors, especially from a Reddit discussion forum called FundieSnarkUncensored, which is dedicated to vitriol against conservative Christians.
On April 29 of this year, while staying in Florida and planning to travel to Georgia, they noticed disturbing comments alleging their one-week-old baby Boone had “severe sunburn, was lethargic, and had jaundice.” After deleting the comment, they proceeded with their trip the next morning until receiving a call from Florida Child Protective Services (CPS).
Reviewing FundieSnarkUncensored revealed that members of the group openly discussed how to report the family to authorities, and even determined their physical location to determine where to send the allegations.
The CPS caseworker “quoted verbatim from the Instagram comment Britney had seen earlier,” explaining that they had obtained her phone number after conducting a welfare check where the family’s RV had been. “The investigator seemed understanding during the call, which ended without further action required,” FFP continues, but later that day, JD had missed a call from Walton County, Florida’s Department of Children & Families (DCF), which was followed up with a text warning threatening to issue a nationwide “Order to Take Into Custody” if the message was not returned.
They reached out to the Texas-based FFP, which found an attorney for them in Florida and arranged a meeting with DCF at a nearby hospital. It eventually determined that the children were not being mistreated, but not before frightening the children with a squad car pulling up behind them, lights flashing. The case was closed with no further danger to the family, but far-left Redditors continued their harassment and police and medical staff alike expressed shock that the situation had gone so far in the first place.
On Thursday, DeSantis spokesman Bryan Griffin told The Daily Wire that “[u]tilizing government entities to make false reports or harass others is unacceptable and will be referred to law enforcement for investigation and ultimately prosecution.”
Florida DCF added that while it is “required to investigate all allegations of abuse, neglect, or abandonment to ensure the safety of children,” it is also the case that “[f]alse reports are reported to law enforcement for criminal investigation and prosecution. Filing a false report is a felony with legal consequences, as outlined in 39.205, F.S., and is also a drain on Department resources dedicated to protecting children from abuse and exploitation.” The agency confirmed that law enforcement is now investigating the false allegations.
In an emailed statement “applauding” the DeSantis administration, FFP vice president Jeremy Newman declared the “time for accountability and reform to Child Protective Services in the United States is long overdue. The Lott family story is just the latest example of a long line of outrageous and unjust cases across the country where a states’ child protective services agency has been weaponized and turned against an innocent and unassuming family.”
BOMBSHELL PROOF: Acting Secret Service Director Caught In Massive Perjury