One powerful way that aware communities are kept in check is through disinformation. We’re bombarded with it constantly. Even brilliant aware medical doctors and PhD researchers fall for it, because manipulation bypasses the conscious intellect to target the subconscious emotional level that controls conscious perception. So, a strong intellect provides no barrier to manipulation. In fact, it works better on people with advanced degrees, according to a psychology professor who wrote a book on manipulation. The fastest fish gets the bait—and the hook! Individuals vary, but this is true in both sleeper and aware communities. (See Fear vs. Knowledge for an introduction to manipulation in both sleeper and aware communities.)
Once manipulation takes hold, it is very difficult to awaken a person. We see this when pro-vaccine people refuse to even look at our information. Mark Twain summed it up this way: “It’s easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled.” The word “fooled” is misleading with respect to psychological manipulation, though, because it’s not about anyone’s intellectual intelligence. Anyway, manipulation works with us, too, and legal disinformation provides a good example, for once a person is taken in by it, they powerfully resist “awakening” to this fact. So, it's best to avoid getting sucked in in the first place. The good news is that legal disinformation traps can be avoided if you know what to look for.
A comparison to the medical world can help. For example, since a majority of medical doctors believe vaccine false vaccine narratives, we might reasonably speculate that a majority of attorneys believe false legal narratives. But that’s not the case. Please allow me to explain.
First, pro-vaccine communities point to authoritative sources to support their beliefs: published medical studies, the majority of reputable authorities from the WHO, CDC, FDA, state health agencies, leaders from top medical educational institutions, and mainstream media personalities. Aware people understand that these systems are corrupt, but people who aren’t aware of this reasonably believe these authoritative sources. At the end of the day, though, pro- and anti-vaxxers point to medical authority to support their position. The question then becomes which specific sources are correct and how an erroneous view could come to dominate lay and professional communities alike. It entails exploring rabbit holes of corruption where fake information masquerades as truth and of psychological warfare that causes even brilliant medical doctors to perceive false vaccine information as logical and true.
But something different is going on in the legal arena. A growing number of non-legal experts promote “new” legal theories that aren’t supported by any legal authority. This has progressed to the level where agents are selling courses teaching fake legal theories claiming it’s real law. And people in our community are getting sucked in not because we’re careless or stupid, but because the fake law is designed by brilliant (if evil) psychologists that know how to manipulate us into buying in, literally and figuratively, to it. Manipulation targets the subconscious emotional level that drives conscious-level perception. So, its operation is invisible and out of reach of the conscious mind. It invisibly controls some of what looks logical to us without us knowing it. That’s why no one knows they’re being manipulated (it’s invisible); and why information alone, which can’t affect the subconscious driver, doesn’t wake people up.
So, while both sides of the vaccine controversy point to medical authoritative sources to support their position, legal disinformation proponents don’t point to any legal authority to make their case, instead claiming to have discovered a way outsmart the law. In the rare instances where they do point to some legal authority, it doesn’t support their claims. They claim that they, a non-legal expert, have figured something out on their own that the entire legal field has somehow missed. That’s quite a stretch, folks. And the bottom line is that legal disinformation agents’ claims simply don’t hold up to real legal scrutiny. But they aren’t selling their theories to legal experts, they’re selling to non-legal-experts who have no ability to legally scrutinize their claims.
We need the input of credentialed experts with both medical and legal concerns because of the complexity of our modern society. Few people could study on their own and achieve the same level of understanding as formally trained doctors and lawyers, even if they had the requisite intellectual aptitude. Simpler times where one could apprentice to become a doctor or lawyer are long gone. While all doctors and lawyers possess some generalized information, general practitioners are, necessarily in today’s complex world, virtually non-existent. There are good reasons for requiring degrees and licenses in these fields; it (theoretically) screens out those who aren’t up to the task (the system corruption in both medical and legal systems notwithstanding).
So, what are the legal authoritative sources, the equivalent of medicine’s published research? In this respect, law is more complex than medicine, as there multiple primary and secondary sources of legal authority; and the application of law can be unique to each specific set of circumstances in which a legal question arises. Determining a person’s rights, for example, requires determining the legally relevant facts at one point in time, which can give rise to one or more legal questions. Each question may require researching a combination of state and/or federal constitutions, statues, and regulations; and then additionally researching bodies of legal precedent to understand if and how those laws apply to the specific situation in question. Often, there isn’t a clear legal answer, so the researcher must form a legal opinion or legal argument to as to how the law should be applied in each specific situation and point in time. Formal answers to legal disputes come from judges in lawsuits; and even then, where outcomes can be appealed, it’s not necessarily a final answer. And even a final appeal decision can be overturned later by a future court ruling. But to cut to the chase: Any claim not spelled out clearly in existing law—a state and/or federal statue(s), regulation(s) and/or legal precedent—is merely someone’s legal opinion—and usually a bad one when it comes from someone lacking legal training and expertise. Our legal systems are, necessarily, every bit as complex as our modern society.
This is further complicated by real-world influences. Lawyers craft legal arguments not to determine the best legal application with respect to the law, but to win for their clients regardless of what the proper legal outcome should be according to law, because that’s how they maximize their incomes. When faced with a choice between “best for all concerned” and “make more money,” most people will choose “make more money,” and rationalize doing so to justify or hide the resulting harm. (The application of psychology to capitalism makes this outcome far more predictable than desirable.) When out-of-control egos and pathologies such as narcissism and psychopathy are involved—which are disproportionately higher in the professions than the general population—innocent lives are unnecessarily harmed or lost. In the legal world, corrupt prosecutors have gotten innocent people executed for murders they didn’t commit. They do this to make themselves look good for “protecting” their community, as though a higher successful prosecution rate means “safer” (it doesn’t), or to look good or advance their career goals. Perhaps one day we’ll execute a few corrupt prosecutors and such behavior will rapidly diminish.
Anyway, the study of law isn’t something people can effectively do on their own, because it involves primarily the development of abstract analytical reasoning skills rather than memorizing legal theories and laws. This aptitude and training are required to be able to effectively evaluate each unique situation to determine what legal theories may apply and how, to determine what law needs to be researched, and to then properly conduct that research. There’s a good reason that most people who apply to law school don’t get in; that not all who get in graduate; that not all who graduate pass the bar; and that not all who pass the bar make good lawyers. Effectively navigating our complex legal systems requires an aptitude for legal reasoning, training to develop that aptitude, and then practical experience just to begin to master law. Even then, mastery is limited to one or very few specialized areas and requires ongoing education and research to keep up. There’s no such a thing as a medical or legal expert in the general sense. Today’s world requires a myriad of medical and legal specialists to, collectively, keep up with the ever-deepening complexities of our constantly evolving modern world. It’s just not feasible for individuals to get there on their own.
So, how can we recognize legal disinformation? There are some easy-to-identify red flags that give it away. Legal Disinformation:
1. Rarely comes from people with any real legal expertise. They often claim to have studied law on their own. Use a little common sense here. Would you allow someone who studied medicine on their own to remove your appendix? Mastery of medicine and law requires an above-average intelligence (if different kinds of intelligence as to each), formal training, and real-world, practical experience. If the person asserting a legal theory doesn’t have this, they aren’t a reliable legal information source—period. They’re either passing along information they unwittingly bought into or are disinformation agents out to distract us. In my 30 years of work with vaccine exemptions, I’ve never seen a legal theory from a non-legal expert that was valid. And I’ve investigated dozens of these claims over the years.
2. Isn’t backed by any legal authority. Friends, if there’s no statute, regulation, or legal precedent case spelling out the claimed legal right, there is no legal right in any U.S. legal system—period. There’s no such thing as a “workaround” to current law. If you can’t show a judge the law in black and white from a formal legal authoritative source, you can’t win your case (unless you can afford to buy a judge, but then it doesn’t matter what your legal theory is).
3. Sometimes cites law to appear credible, but the cited law doesn’t support the claimed legal theory. This can be tricky, as laws must be read carefully, and legal training may be required to fully understand and interpret some laws. Don’t be fooled by appearances. Citing law proves nothing unless the cited law actually supports the claimed legal theory. Confirming that with a legal expert is advised.
4. Comes with claims of successful application, yet rarely provides documentation proving that (and such documentation can also be faked). We are too quick to believe anything that sounds good, because as things get worse and worse, we are increasingly desperate for good news. But we must exercise caution. Manipulators know our vulnerabilities and take full advantage of them. So, unless there’s a link to a formal legal source or someone has reviewed the court file and copied the court order, be skeptical. Show me an authenticated copy of the original file-stamped court order, and I’ll look more closely at your claim. But even isolated real-world instances of success don’t necessarily apply broadly, as every case ultimately has its own unique set of facts.
When in doubt, consult a trusted legal expert. There are some in our community who are happy to help. A good general rule is that if you don’t hear the same thing from at least two independent sources, you should be skeptical. Look for independent confirmation. And if it comes from a non-legal expert, run away fast. Respectfully, this includes our own MD’s and PhD’s who often think they understand law but don’t. The only MD or PhD I’ve ever met who understood law were the ones who were also lawyers with a JD.
I’ll end by throwing a monkey wrench into the works. In the final analysis, the law doesn’t apply to the elite. They can invent or ignore law as needed to advance their agenda. Corrupt or coerced legislatures pass laws to assist with this, as do judges with corrupt or coerced court rulings. Legal disinformation, then, serves mostly to occupy our time. One way it does that is by getting people like me to argue with it, to call it out, because trying to persuade someone “they’ve been fooled” by legal disinformation leads to endless, unresolvable arguments. It’s about as easy as getting pro-vaccine people to accept vaccine truth, and for the exact same reason: psychological manipulation is more powerful than truth. False narratives are tied to subconscious fear, and that fear literally pushes away truth to save the person’s life on a subconscious emotional level. The subconscious driver skews conscious level perception—what looks logical to us. Being subconscious, it’s invisible, so no one thinks they’re manipulated. This serves to keep the manipulation locked into place and operating continuously. And while they can’t put us back to sleep on the things we’ve already awakened to, it otherwise works with equal effectiveness on both sleeper and aware alike. Legal disinformation is one example of our manipulation. But while the above is likely to be rejected by those already ensnared (just as vaccine truth bounces off manipulated pro-vaxxers), hopefully, it will enable others of you to avoid becoming ensnared by legal disinformation traps in the first place.
For specific examples of legal disinformation see Vaccine Legal Disinformation at vaccinerights.com.
With gratitude,
Alan Phillips, J.D.
Vaccine Rights Legal Expert
Friends, I Need Your Help! Please consider a one-time or small monthly donation to help keep these articles coming. Any amount helps!
Have an exemption question? Email alan@vaccinerights.com. Some questions may be addressed, anonymously, in future articles.
Exemption Articles: vaccinerights.com/articles, vaccinerights.substack.com/archive
Alan Phillips, J.D., is the nation’s leading vaccine rights legal expert, the only person who’s ever been a fulltime attorney with exemptions, who’s worked in all 3 dozen+ exemption contexts and sub-contexts (indeed, the only one who can name ½ of them), and who’s worked with clients, attorneys, legislators, and activists nationally for over two decades. For exemption help see vaccinerights.com.