Michigan Mom Who Won’t Vaccinate Her Son Is Sentenced to Seven Days in Jail

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: JinMI

So much for living in a free country.

I am NOT anti-vax, but I am pro-freedom.

My body my choice.

Would pro freedom include faith healing?

No. Faith healing would be vaccines. You're more likely to be harmed from a vaccine than any disease it supposedly protects you from. The pharmaceuticals obviously have no faith in vaccines. You aren't allowed to sue them if they botch your vaccination.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Yeah, ok.
Know anybody with polio?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JinMI

I don't see how this is legal. Where is the law that states that you have to take a needle?

It doesn't. And that's not what happened.


The child's father said to vaccinate the child. The judge said to follow the father's wishes. The mother refused. The mother is in contempt.

She also said in court that Bredow’s attorney had signed the November court order for vaccination, meaning Bredow had agreed to it.

“It’s clear to me that you don’t care about orders even if you agree to them, which you did,” the judge told Bredow, who’s the primary caregiver of her son with Horne.

www.washingtonpost.com... ?utm_term=.219477957ef5

Be that as it may, there is something missing; What allows the judge to force the mom to take the dads suggestion as an order? How is vaccination part of a custody order? That's the part that's illegal. She couldn't be in contempt because the judge stepped outside of the legal boundary in presenting that court order.

She's in jail for contempt, not for not vaccinating, but she's in contempt precisely because she didn't vaccinate. Clever use of the system by the judge to force her into vaccinating, eh?

I.E. A judge just can't make a custody order to include anything he wants, he can't say -- you don't get custody unless you murder somebody, oh you didn't murder somebody, now contempt. A judge is only allowed to force things that are lawful, not opinion or bias.

Well, we don't have the agreement details, so I can quote too:
She also told the judge that she and her ex-husband originally held the same beliefs on vaccinations for the children, but she claimed he recently changed his mind to get leverage in their ongoing legal custody battle.

He could have changed his mind, just as easily as she did.


Woman's prerogative and all.

I will say, that until they release the actual documents,, we will not know the truth.
The devil is in the details

a reply to: chiefsmom

Woman's prerogative and all.

Trouble is, she seems to have changed her mind after agreeing to the order.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chiefsmom

Woman's prerogative and all.

Trouble is, she seems to have changed her mind after agreeing to the order.

Trouble is, that order was illegal from the get go, whether she was forced to agree to it or not. And yes, the judge extorted her into signing that order in the first place. "You get custody if you agree to vaccinate, if not, you don't get custody." Her kid was literally being held as ransom for compliance. That's not how it works.

Would you be singing a different tune if the judge ordered her to take that kid to a mosque, or a church? Or if the judge ordered that kid to be forced to watch state sponsored television? Those are matters of opinion, that's not what judges make judgement upon, they interpret the law and judge whether you're inside of it or not, you don't get to hinge a custody hearing upon the judges opinion.

Get it yet? The order in the first place wasn't lawful, regardless if she signed it.

She's held in contempt because she was forced to agree to an order that shouldn't have ever been given. Get it yet?

Don't agree to the order, lose your kid, do agree to the order and then violate it, spend time in jail -- she had zero options, she was forced into vaccination or she was being punished.

She had a bias shoved down her throat by the court system. The judge used that order as a loophole and clearly applied the law in a way it wasn't designed to be used, and exercised his will through a legal exploit.

a reply to: SRPrime

What allows the judge to force the mom to take the dads suggestion as an order?

Not suggestions, conditions. A condition of the consent order. The one that she agreed to. There might even be conditions about holidays and stuff too.

How is vaccination part of a custody order? That's the part that's illegal.

Why is it illegal? Sure, it could have been a bit spiteful on his part or maybe he didn't want the divorce in the first place. But not illegal.

Would you be singing a different tune if the judge ordered her to take that kid to a mosque, or a church? Or if the judge ordered that kid to be forced to watch state sponsored television?

Why are you insisting that a judge placed the vaccination condition in the consent order? A judge cannot order that, or any of those other things you suggest.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SRPrime

What allows the judge to force the mom to take the dads suggestion as an order?

Not suggestions, conditions. A condition of the consent order. The one that she agreed to. There might even be conditions about holidays and stuff too.

How is vaccination part of a custody order? That's the part that's illegal.

Why is it illegal? Sure, it could have been a bit spiteful on his part or maybe he didn't want the divorce in the first place. But not illegal.

Oh Jesus Christ. It was a court order. Period. The court order was rendered by the court. That means the court told her she had to vaccinate or lose her child. If she didn't vaccinate, then she gets held in contempt of court for failing the order. It does not matter who drafted the order, only that the court upheld it.

It's not like they hashed out what days of the week they would see each other in arbitration, the judge literally hinged the custody of the child upon a single factor that he had no business including.

The judge did order it, he allowed that to be in the consent form and then punished her through the court for not following it.

It was an exploit and absolutely extortion to coerce her into doing what she didn't agree with. She was told if she didn't accept that consent form that she wouldn't have custody, correct? She didn't get to draft her own consent form or bring it to arbitration, correct?

a reply to: SRPrime

The court order was rendered by the court.

The court validated an agreement between the parents. Don't blame the judge.

But when Bredow refused to go through with the remaining vaccinations, her ex-husband asked the judge to force Bredow, who has primary custody of the child, to comply with their prior agreement.

www.nydailynews.com...

She was told if she didn't accept that consent form that she wouldn't have custody, correct? She didn't get to draft her own consent form or bring it to arbitration, correct?

I have no idea.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Yeah, ok.
Know anybody with polio?

Here's just one of many examples.

vaccine, manufactured by the California-based family firm of Cutter Laboratories, had caused 40 000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Here's just one of many examples.

Your source

The Cutter incident had an ambivalent legacy. On the one hand, it led to the effective federal regulation of vaccines, which today enjoy a record of safety `unmatched by any other medical product'. On the other hand, the court ruling that Cutter was liable to pay compensation to those damaged by its polio vaccine—even though it was not found to be negligent in its production—opened the floodgates to a wave of litigation.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Phage

That quote is fair enough. My source didn't indicate that she had signed an agreement to have the child vaccinated prior.

The way I read it was based on the fathers decision, she would have to have the child vaccinated and refused.

However I will mention this, was she aware her lawyer signed it?

She had to be aware, otherwise she would not have been awarded temporary custody. She had to agree to vaccinate or she would not have been given custody, literally in order to get the kid she had to agree to vaccinate...which speaks volumes about both of the parents, to me. It doesn't sound like the best interests of the actual child are much of a focus for either of them.

People really need to start speaking up if they don't understand what they're agreeing to. The moment she signed a contract with that attorney, she agreed to allow him to speak on her behalf...that's part of them representing their clients, and it's a binding legal agreement. If she didn't understand what she was signing, it was 100% her responsibility to speak up before she put pen to paper on that contract.

Anyone who thinks the judge is in the wrong here does not have a complete grasp of the nature of an attorney-client relationship. It's not about the vaccines. She has every legal right to refuse them...as long as she's got unconditional permanent custody.

Instead, she willfully signed a contract that allowed a legal representative to make decisions as her proxy without her being present. And, in that capacity, she willfully agreed through her attorney that she would be granted temporary custody...upon the condition that she have the child vaccinated. I'm guessing she doesn't have an adequate grasp of how serious court orders actually are, either. It sounds like this poor kid desperately needs an ad litem so that someone is actually working in HIS best interests.

I can't muster even one drop of sympathy for someone who would rather go to jail and have her personal family business plastered on the internet and sensationalised, and leave her kid with yet another person for the duration, than to simply do what she promised to do and act like a responsible parent. She deserves whatever she gets.

Sadly, though, she probably won't learn her lesson. It's sad because ultimately, that child has to suffer for her ignorant behavior, and no child should ever have to live like that. Divorce is hard enough on kids without turning them into pawns. It looks like that's precisely what she was doing and it came back to bite her in the ass...but the one who loses the most in this is the one who has no say-so in what happens to him for at least the next nine years of his life.

a reply to: tigertatzen

Between you and Phage, my total lack of diligence has been exposed!

I was making my kid breakfast this morning and I overheard this on the boobtoob. The kid is one and likes the weather and traffic, don't judge me! I later checked ATS before bed, didn't see anything on it. Came to work later in the evening to the same thing so I checked on it, nothing. Found an article, read it, then posted it.

I fell for the propaganda! I didn't check any sites other than newsweek and its source.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Here's just one of many examples.

Your source

The Cutter incident had an ambivalent legacy. On the one hand, it led to the effective federal regulation of vaccines, which today enjoy a record of safety `unmatched by any other medical product'. On the other hand, the court ruling that Cutter was liable to pay compensation to those damaged by its polio vaccine—even though it was not found to be negligent in its production—opened the floodgates to a wave of litigation.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

LOL! Now we've learned to be careful. We had no idea something like that could happen even though it wasn't our fault. Nothing to see. Vaccines are up to a higher standard now (even though they use a form of mercury as a preservative). Trust us. Blather Blah Blah. Enjoy.

www.ncbi.n... lm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/




Ever wonder where AIDS came from?

I hope people fight this vaccine debacle......they will eventually kill most of us if we do not stop them from poisoning us......no one can believe what Big Pharma says and they control some governments now.....maybe Trump can bring em down.

a reply to: Phage

I'm amazed that a judge actually punished a woman for not following court orders that relate to children in the children's court.

Wow, color me blind. I wish had that judge in respect to court orders my ex never followed.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Wow, color me blind. I wish had that judge in respect to court orders my ex never followed.

I don't know that it was "children's court" but did you specifically make a request to the court? What did you ask for?

a reply to: Phage


Ive had 3 sets of court orders from 3 different judges over the last 10 years, there is literally nothing I can do that makes a difference ( except going back to court and spending vast amounts of $$$$, i haven't seen my daughter for 3 years now. I'm fed up with this bogus system.

a reply to: Phage

What did you ask for?

Access that's all, to be part of her life, the last orders i was granted every second weekend and half of all holidays.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

If you live in Michigan you might want to look up the judge in this case.