We have just filed our latest Amicus Brief on mandates with SCOTUS. More here: http://www.opensourcetruth.com/vax-mandate-amicus-brief-filed-with-supreme-court/
Currently we are seeking support for mandated vaccine related efforts, in conjunction with the advocacy efforts of the Natural Solutions Foundation.
Here are some recent activities:
 Supporting Amicus Brief to the US Supreme Court on the issue of vaccine mandates. Read more here: http://www.opensourcetruth.com/vaccine-mandates-violate-humane-law/
 Ralph Fucetola JD, President of the Institute spoke at the Libertarian Scholars' Conference (Kings College, NYC) in October 2019 regarding the universal right of Informed Consent to mandated vaccination.
The paper presented is here: http://www.inhere.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Informed-Consent.paper_.1a.pdf
 We also seek funding to support potential litigation in support of Informed Consent and Informed Dissent.
Our first project for this Fundly page was to support litigation in New Jersey involving several holistic practitioners who were being sued by a BlueCross/BlueShield plan (herein, BCBS) for "fraud" although the customers wanted the natural therapies that were offered. The insurer can afford the best legal representatives; the doctors and practitioners need your help.
Please note: Ralph Fucetola JD, President of the Institute, is not the attorney for the Defendants and is retired from the formal practice of the law.
The dynamic young attorney representing the Defendants sought to set a precedent requiring insurers to honor the desires of their customers and allow holistic therapies that may benefit.
Since the case did survive the standard motion for Summary Judgment, before being settled to protect the doctor involved, it did set a precedent raising the ACA's nondiscrimination prohibition as a powerful source of protection for holistic and integrative health care options.
Here are some of the points that were raised by the defense:
1. BCBS's suit is primarily based on accusing Defendants of providing fraudulent healthcare services.
2. In fact, Defendants have never provided fraudulent services to patients who wanted the services offered and gave their Informed Consent for such services.
3. BCBS claimed that Defendants miscoded services.
4. In fact, the codes used by Defendants to file claims were not used incorrectly.
5. An outside billing expert reviewed Defendant’s claims and found that their claims used the treating and supervising provider NPI numbers in the wrong slots.
6. This same expert was ready to testify that no practice she has audited has understood how to correctly apply for and/or use NPI numbers and that training on the correct use of these number is rare, even for medical billers.
7. BCBS did not point to errors related to NPI number placement in its prior audit of of defendants in 2012.
8. Instead, BCBS withheld payments to shortly after submitting its audit results to Defendants.
9. Without giving Defendants a chance to correct its billing errors, BCBS violated Defendants rights under New Jersey law: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2009/title-17/section-17-29b/17-29b-4
10. Had BCBS gone back into AIM’s practice, it would have found that AIM purchased an electronic system to better tie patients notes to patient visits after the audit pointed out this weakness.
11. This action dought to prove that Defendants took BCBS’s audit seriously and tried to comply with best practices.
12. However, BCBS quit paying claims after its audit and seems to have assumed that Defendants were committing fraud instead.
13. BCBS’s presumption of Defendants’ violation of the Fraud and Abuse Act under HIPPA law financially damaged Defendants.
14. BCBS also seems to have attempted to damage Defendants reputation with patients by contacting them and intimating Defendant’s were involved in providing illegal treatments.
15. BCBS did not ask these patients if they were helped by Defendants’ treatments or if they gave Informed Consent.
16. In fact, over the past 15 years, no patients have ever complained of the care they received from Defendants and most were willing to testify that the care they received from Defendants was superior to the care they receive from conventionally trained doctors.
17. BCBS claims that it does not cover Alternative Medicine.
18. In fact, BCBS’s statement violates Section 2706 of the Affordable Care Act forbidding insurance discrimination against service providers.
December 2018 Case Update: Victory in SJM:https://tinyurl.com/ProviderNondiscrimination
November 2018 Case Report: http://www.inhere.org/2018/11/06/making-health-insurers-follow-the-rules/
We have just filed our latest Amicus Brief on mandates with SCOTUS. More here: http://www.opensourcetruth.com/vax-mandate-amicus-brief-filed-with-supreme-court/
We've filed another Amicus Brief contra the DC Regime's vaccine mandates. Read about that here: http://www.opensourcetruth.com/institute-files-amicus-brief-contra-biden-fed-mandate-executive-order/
Across the USA, and the world, litigation is being pursued to test the limits of vaccine and other mandates, and to defend the universal right to Informed consent. We continue to support such litigation, as well as supporting all of the work of the Institute. You can read more about the work of the Institute, and read our online Journal, here: https://InHeRe.org
Here is a recent article I posted on recent court action by the Front Line Doctors: http://www.opensourcetruth.com/front-line-doctors-file-amended-complaint/
The two Amici Briefs that your funding supported are being efiled as I type this message. Copies of the final versions are posted here: http://www.opensourcetruth.com/stop-the-mandates-amici-briefs-being-efiled-right-now/
Thank you all! There are a number of other situations that we will be supporting, including the arrests in New Zealand of health freedom advocates Vinny Eastwood and Billy Te Kahika. More about them here: http://www.opensourcetruth.com/more-on-new-zealand-political-prisoners-vinny-and-billy/
Amicus Brief Finalized. To be filed shortly. Copy posted here for you to read: http://www.opensourcetruth.com/vaccine-mandates-violate-humane-law/
We're preparing to file an Amicus Brief in support of the Mandamus to the Supreme Court reported in the previous Update. The Institute is one of the Amici (Friends of the Court).
Rule 37 of the Rules of the Supreme Court permit, “An amicus curiae brief that brings to the attention of the Court relevant matter not already brought to its attention by the parties...”
We support the Petitioners’ contention that the courts below erred and that error, due to the public importance of the issues presented, must be corrected by the immediate intervention of this honorable Court.
There are two important COVID Jab cases heading to the US Supreme Court right now. When the October Term begins in a few weeks these cases need to have been already filed. One of the cases is imaged above. The other is imaged below.
The upper case is about protecting the Unvaxxed ("The Control Group" case) from contamination by the Vaxxed. The lower case is about voiding the Emergency Use Authorizations for various good reasons ("The Frontline Doctors" Case).
We need your immediate help funding these cases. The next few weeks will make or break these opportunities to stop the Scamdemic. Donate here now: https://fundly.com/support-natural-therapies
You can read more about the Frontline Doctors Case here: http://www.opensourcetruth.com/frontline-doctors-sue-fauci/http://www.opensourcetruth.com/frontline-doctors-sue-fauci/
The documentation for the Control Group Case is being worked on as I write. I can share just the first few paragraphs of the draft with you:
The district court dismissed this scientifically vetted national security case on standing grounds by disregarding the most important allegations in the verified complaint that did establish standing.
Petitioners (“Healthiest Americans”) are in the fully unvaccinated scientific control group, statistically the healthiest citizens by >1,000%.
America’s confirmed national data show more than half of vaccinated citizens are disabled and dying prematurely (i.e., heart disease, cancer, autoimmune disorders). Control groups prove causation, and routinely change our entire perspective of pharmaceutical side effects. This case advocates for the control group’s right to exist and not go extinct.
. . . In 2021, the government administers more than 100 vaccines on an American during his lifetime. Increasing vaccine injury rates prove the trajectory that America’s collapse to chronic illness is mathematically imminent unless we learn. The government acknowledges that zero unvaccinated control group studies have ever been published by the government.
In this regard, since 1963, the national vaccine program is the President’s human medical experiment. POTUS vigorously develops, approves, purchases, promotes, and administers mandatory vaccines while federally funding US parties to enforce nationwide vaccine mandates (and now vaccine identification) as a condition to societal participation.
Government data prove sanitation and healthy lifestyle, not vaccines, protect all Americans. The fully unvaccinated control group is thriving mentally and physically at >95% complete health for life, but these citizens are less than 0.3% of our population and shrinking (only about 830,000 remain unexposed). The President’s warp speed vaccination and tracking program currently threatens the control group’s right to exist in America. Thus, the district court denied the scientific method.
We have been asked to submit an Amicus Brief to support the Petition. We need your help now.
Donate here now: https://fundly.com/support-natural-therapies
Here is a link to the Petition Counsel Finn has filed with the US Supreme Court. This is a powerful legal document. Please show your support for her efforts by donating! http://www.opensourcetruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SCOTUS-for-Publishing-D.pdf
For the First Time in Over a Hundred Years
SCOTUS Receives a Vaccine Mandate Petition
Patricia Finn, The Good Health Lawyer from Rockland County, NY has worked with Natural Solutions Foundation and the health freedom movement for decades. We are therefore pleased to announce that she has just filed a ground-breaking Petition for Certiorari with the US Supreme Court. The Petition was filed on 5 October 2020.
The case going to SCOTUS is the case of Jane Doe vs Merck. This case challenges the failure of the US Government and Merck, the major vaccine drug company, to disclose the “unavoidably unsafe” nature of childhood vaccines, which lead to horrendous injuries to Baby Doe. That happened twenty years ago. Now grown, Jane Doe and her husband can no longer care for her severely autistic son. He must be placed in a group home for proper care. But, under New York’s draconian vaccine laws, he must be vaccinated yet again and can have no medical exemption. He is forced to “play roulette” with more “unavoidably unsafe” vaccines.
This Fundly Account is now active again. We continue to seek your support for Counsel Finn's SCOTUS petition. We've raised over a thousand dollars but need to raise many more! We seek to have the High Court reinforce its 1905 decision that the Courts can protect people from forced vaccination.
Patricia Finn Esq, The Good Health Lawyer is heading to the US Supreme Court with a vaccine freedom case. For the first time in a hundred years a serious challenge to vaccine mandates will be presented to the Court this July. The Institute's Fundly Account wants to support Counsel Finn's efforts and we need your contributions to do so. Please help!
More information here:http://www.inhere.org/the-good-health-lawyer-heads-to-us-supreme-court/
We are currently raising funding to support potential litigation based on a formal Petition filed with FDA in March 2019 calling for the suspension of all childhood vaccine approvals as they have all violated federal law. This Petition was filed under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and is intended to "exhaust administrative remedies" to allow a Federal lawsuit to be initiated.
The information web page for this APA Petition is http://drrimatruthreports.com/petition-to-suspend-all-fda-vaccine-drug-approvals/
PLEASE MAKE A GENEROUS DONATION!
This note just in from Dr. G:
There was a motion heard today in Court to dismiss our counterclaims. Overall we won, but here are the counterclaims and the update as far as which ones remain per Ken (our attorney):
1. Breach of Contract: Remains
2. Declaratory Judgment (Removed, per Ken's decision but the judge agreed)
3.Frivolous Cause of Action (Removed, per Ken's decision but the judge agreed)
4. ERISA based claims: Remains
5.Unjust Enrichment: Removed
6. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: Remains
Trial is rescheduled for 2/18/2020.
Ken has placed 8 Motions in Limine (will be decided 2/14/20 prior to trial)
The judge has allowed for Horizon to put in their Motions in Limine (they will be asking for removal of our expert witnesses) possibly.
Ken may put more motion in Limine in; if you have any suggestions it will be appreciated."
Several people have told me that this Fundly page is not working correctly. I tested it and am getting an "incorrect zip code" error. I have contacted Fundly about this and am expecting a correction.
Meanwhile, the Institute can accept donations through its PayPal facility. Here is that link: https://www.paypal.me/InstHealthReseach (yes, "research" is mispelled...)
The litigation involving the New Jersey natural doctor has continued since the last update. We are close to achieving an accommodation with the insurance carrier that may benefit all natural doctors.
Here is some of what the defense is planning to tell the court:
8. The insurance carrier is obligated under Federal law to engage in what the relevant Federal Agency (Center for Consumer Information & Insurance Oversight - CCIIO) says must be “good faith” and “reasonable” steps to meet the Provider Nondiscrimination Provision of the Affordable Care Act, codified in the Public Health Services Act (PHS) as section 2706(a), with regard to the claims submitted by defendants that plaintiff denied. https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Fact-Sheets-and-FAQs/aca_implementation_faqs15.html
9. On the record in this case, there is no evidence that the plaintiff engaged in any “good faith” or “reasonable” steps to adhere to the Provider Nondiscrimination provision. That provision of the law, Section 2706, states: “a group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall not discriminate with respect to participation under the plan or coverage against any health care provider who is acting within the scope of that provider’s license or certification under applicable state law.” The question of the plaintiff’s good faith and reasonable actions is a question for the trier of fact and there must be a preponderance of the evidence to show that the plaintiff so acted.
10. Since the basis for the plaintiff’s claim that it is not obligated to cover its customers’ treatments when there is an alleged failure to meet certain technical requirements of the corporate practice of medicine, which is a remedy that is not provided in the statute, the remedy sought is essentially an equitable remedy. However, to receive equity from the Court the plaintiff must do equity. The plaintiff has failed to do equity by failing to abide by the provisions of the Provider Nondiscrimination provision and by failing to meet the Unfair Methods of Competition standards provided in N.J.S.A. 17:29B-4, as discussed below.
11. The Unfair Methods of Competition law clearly includes health care insurance, in that health care insurance is mentioned at least twice in the law by way of inclusion, not exclusion. The assertion that the law does not apply to the plaintiff is not supported by the language of the statute.
12. (2) Among other provisions of law and regulation, Horizon is obligated to remain in compliance with the following provisions of N.J.S.A. 17:29B-4, Unfair methods of competition, unfair, deceptive acts, practices, defined (which is appears to have violated):
13. Clause (9) (c) - Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims arising under insurance policies;
14. Clause (d) - Refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon all available information;
15. Clause (e) - Failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after proof of loss statements have been completed;
16. Clause (l) - Delaying the investigation or payment of claims by requiring an insured, claimant or the physician of either to submit a preliminary claim report and then requiring the subsequent submission of formal proof of loss forms, both of which submissions contain substantially the same information;
17. Clause (m) - Failing to promptly settle claims, where liability has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage;
18. Clause (n) - Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation of the basis in the insurance policy in relation to the facts or applicable law for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement;
19. Clause (10) - Not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear.
20. Based on our review of the documentation between S. Jonuzi’s management company and Dr. Gardner’s medical practice company, including the contracts and the Standing Order, we conclude that there was a good faith effort by both companies to structure their relationship to meet New Jersey’s standards for the corporate practice of medicine. The plaintiff has however failed to do equity and is barred from what it claims is its equitable remedy.
Notes from my recent conversation with an Insurance Code expert:
Right before former President Obama was elected, Big Pharma was spending $600K a day on lobbying Congress. To see the 2018 lobbying spend by company, see: https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=h04
Why is this money impacting every one of us? Because it's easy to get "health care" as long as you see pill pushers or go to a hospital but you have to pay out of pocket if you want actual therapies that are not invasive and don’t rely on drugs and surgery. You could have this care without seeing a physician if there were codes to file insurance claims.
Big Pharma supports prescribers – not healers. The medical device industry is supported by hospitals and ongoing health problems – not by solving health problems. Big insurance prices insurance premiums at a minimum of 25% over expected claims – so it is not focused on saving money. This system intentionally keeps consumers in the dark according to Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2013/02/11/healthcares-pricing-cabal/#5a3f3bd26700
The government has mandated the entire industry use codes designed by and for physicians (known as CPT) which are developed by the AMA. But if you read the link the Forbes article, you will also see that the AMA developed the pricing for its coding system.
CPT codes have even more influence on government policy than just being named a mandatory standard. CPT is also known as HCPCS I. HCPCS II codes are developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. By contract with the AMA, HHS agreed to retire any HCPCS II codes that may duplicate CPT. The AMA got this monopoly by giving Medicare and Medicaid a free license for use of its codes. Every insurer, hospital and health provider in the country must pay licensing fees or royalties to the AMA for use of its codes. This generates anywhere from $70 - $150 million a year in revenue for the AMA – as stated in the Forbes article referenced above, the AMA effectively hides its CPT revenue by lumping it in with other products and services.)
What can we do about it? For one, make sure that Section 2706 of the Affordable Care Act is not pulled but instead, given sharper teeth. Imagine if insurers were forced to pay for drugless and non-invasive therapies from any licensed health professional. You would not have to go to a physician to get diagnosed and sent home with a pharmaceutical. Your nurse practitioner could see you without having to follow the rules of being a physician extender. You could visit a massage therapist to reduce your stress or treat a tight muscle without having to take muscle relaxers or Prosac. You could see a holistic doctor and get a vitamin or mineral IV therapy to enhance your immune system rather than be prescribed yet another round of damaging antibiotics – which were the initial cause of your immune system’s failure.
All the evidence suggests if Insurance Companies did as their Premium-Payers wanted, and covered holistic and integrative therapies, their bottom line would benefit significantly.
Can’t donate? Please share. Even a quick share on Facebook can help.
The average share raises $97.