When An Attorney That Looks Like A Dildo, Acts Like A Dildo.
Absent intent or authority as legal advice.
Meet Andrew Tauber, “Esquire”, (herein “Dildo Esquire”) lest we forget to mention his pedigree…
And if I’ve ever seen someone that looked like a dildo, that deserved to be called a dildo, this snowflake is at the top of that list. Notice that he avoided wearing a turtleneck for this picture, since it would have surely enhanced the phallic appearance of his presentation.
He had an article published by Lexology titled “Federal Court Confirms that Anti-Vaxxers Do Not Have a Constitutional or Statutory Right to Endanger Everyone Else.”
That Dildo Esquire has an axe to grind is obvious, because let’s be real. Anyone in their right mind would shun the idea that someone approached a federal court asking for declaration or other remedy that confirms that they “have a Constitutional or statutory right to endanger everyone else.” My eyes can’t roll hard enough.
While I’m writing this article about Dildo Esquire, there are several points I want to make that may not involve Dildo Esquire’s romper room antics.
The case Dildo Esquire writes about is Valdez v. Grisham, 2022 WL 3577112 (D.N.M. 2022). There is nothing in this case that asserts that Valdez, et al. tried to claim that they have a “Constitutional or statutory right to endanger everyone else.”
The Jacobson issue, and how it must be dealt with:
The District of NM brought in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), which was about the smallpox vaccine.
I’ve been banging the drum repeatedly, warning everyone that the normal volley of shots across the bow of the USS TYRANNY will not stop the onslaught against individual rights. The Jacobson case being brought forward yet again, proves this.
Jacobson was before the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and before Tennessee v. Lane, and before the ADA Amendments Act. And if Valdez, et al. wanted to know WHY they had the right to refuse, it was definitely not “just because.” And, unfortunately, it was not because of a clearly stated right to refuse in the Constitution.
The right of refusal may be God-given, but the LEGAL reason that these mandates are unlawful and discriminatory, is because they regard everyone as disabled, having a substantially impaired immune system. (This is used to deny equal access on this basis, which is unlawful.) Further, they require the recipient to incur two distinct, admitted disabilities. (Linked article describing this) (This too, is used to discriminatorily exclude access for those not accepting the disabilities the mRNA shots cause.)
So Jacobson has not been weighed in the balance against the ADA, and this MUST be reconciled if this slaughter of rights - to not be discriminated against, to not be regarded as disabled, to not be coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered with while seeking equal access under ADA - is to be stopped.
Dildo Esquire does deserve at least one pat on the back, however. A part of his inferred claim should be inversely observed. There is no constitutional right for the pharmaceutical industry, the President, the CDC, the FDA, the medical industry, employers, business owners, and indeed the legal industry to endanger everyone else, which is what the mRNA shots, and the mandating of them, as well as mandatory masking, has done.
Dildo Esquire ends his article with “Onward to full vaccination.”.
I’m ending my article about him with: “You can fuck right off.”
Dildo Esquire. A well deserved title.
P.D., JAY V SHORE, as Certified ADA Advocate.
"Notice that he avoided wearing a turtleneck"- Well, his name is 𝘛𝘢𝘶𝘣𝘦𝘳. I'm assuming the mohel took away his turtleneck ages ago.
i'm guessing dildo enthusiasts would find the the lube bill to be pretty expensive to cover that whole dildonic head.