THAT LITTLE BLACK BOOK… The Clinton/Epstein Connection

According to records obtained by the Daily Mail, between 1993 and 1995, Jeffrey Epstein visited President Bill Clinton’s White House 17 times, bringing with him a total of eight women.

The convicted sex offender had connections to many celebrities, journalists and prominent political figures, including Clinton. Many of them were listed in Epstein’s little black book.

In its report on Epstein’s many visits to the Clinton White House, the Daily Mail noted that hanging on the walls of Epstein’s mansion in Palm Beach, Florida, were photos of these visits and a few of the women he had with him.

In addition to Epstein’s longtime partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, the names of the other seven women who accompanied him to the Clinton White House were listed in the report.

Maxwell was recently convicted of several crimes related to her complicity in the sex-trafficking crimes of Epstein.

The Daily Mail said three of the women named were Epstein’s former girlfriends — Celina Midelfart, Eva Andersson-Dubin and Francis Jardine.

The other women in the photos were Jennifer Garrison, Shelley Gafni, Jennifer Driver and Lyoubov Orlova.

As this news surrounding Bill Clinton continues to develop, one can just imagine Hillary tensing up with frustration and thinking to herself, “Not again!”

After all, her husband has been accused of sexually assaulting and harassing several women over the years, and he was impeached for lying about his sexual relationship with a White House intern.

It’s unclear how many additional prominent figures were involved in Epstein’s crimes.

Britain’s Prince Andrew faces a lawsuit over allegations that he sexually assaulted one of Epstein’s victims when she was 17 years old.

Andrew has denied any wrongdoing, but Queen Elizabeth II chose to strip him of his royal titles on Thursday.

Will other prominent political figures — former U.S. presidents, for example — face similar legal proceedings related to their relationships with Jeffrey Epstein?

Only time will tell.

Continue reading “THAT LITTLE BLACK BOOK… The Clinton/Epstein Connection”

America First Legal — America First Legal FOIAs HHS, ICE Over Reckless Release of Unaccompanied Alien Children into the Hands of Human Traffickers and Smugglers

Wednesday, September 29, 2021

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, American First Legal (AFL) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking documents from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) related to the influx of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAE) being released into the country. The FOIA seeks information regarding any communication between the two agencies in relation to the sponsors to whom HHS releases children, the extent to which HHS follows up with the sponsors to see if the UAC are still with their sponsor, and the extent to which the UAC appears for immigration hearings.

According to Bloomberg Law, the Biden Administration has released children from government custody to labor traffickers who sent them to work in agricultural processing facilities in numerous cities. This disastrous maneuver comes as the humanitarian crisis along the southwest border continues to worsen and as the Biden Administration seeks to blame everyone except themselves.

CBP’s data shows that prior to the recent surge of Haitians arriving in Del Rio, encounters of illegal aliens have remained at an all-time high. This is yet another data point that shows the Administration’s misguided pandering to open-border left-wing radicals is creating a crisis that is overwhelming our immigration system. The Administration’s policies are incentivizing human trafficking and smuggling at a staggering level, resulting in children being abandoned along the border to be found, hopefully in time, by U.S. Border Patrol.

Even more tragically, this is a problem that we have known about for years. In 2014 we learnedthat the Obama Administration released children to human traffickers who took them off to serve as child labor. Under the Biden Administration’s leadership, these same, horrific, and entirely predictable and preventable problems have returned. Yet HHS continues to avoid any responsibility for the fate of the children they turn over to cartel traffickers.

Statement From former Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker: 

Yet again, the Biden Administration is showing a blatant lack of respect for American sovereignty and the rule of law. The number of illegal unaccompanied minors flooding into our country shatters all precedent. Make no mistake: this administration knows full well the dangers that can befall these migrant children at the hands of human traffickers — assault, slave labor, sex trafficking, etc. We have seen — outlined in the press — reports of migrant children turned over to labor traffickers who forced them into modern day slavery. Yet, that has not deterred the Biden Administration from releasing unaccompanied alien children from HHS custody to individuals who have completed insufficient background checks, who oftentimes lack lawful status, and who will not ensure that the children appear in immigration court. In effect, the Biden Administration is facilitating — not combatting — the criminal smuggling of alien minors. For the Biden Administration, all that matters is that they get them out of their custody as quickly as possible. America First Legal is demanding — and will get — answers,” Matthew Whitaker said.

Read the HHS FOIA here.

Read the ICE FOIA here.

— Read on

Bodily Integrity and Informed Choice in Times of War and Terror

We extend special thanks to Robyn S. Shapiro, Human Rights editorial board member, for her assistance as special issue editor of this edition discussing body rights and body ethics.

Law is the dominant force behind American medical ethics, and has been for at least the past half-century. That lawyers and judges, rather than physicians, have set the agenda for medical ethics in the United States is a bit surprising to many in the field of medical ethics, but it should not be. Medicine has historically been based on paternalism. The Hippocratic physician was obligated to act in the best interests of the patient-as the physician judged those interests-and to “do no harm.” American law, on the other hand, is based on liberty and justice, principles that, among other things, led to the law’s adoption of the doctrine of informed consent-better termed informed choice-under which individuals make the ultimate decision about what, if anything, will be done to their bodies. All of the articles in this issue make that central point from a remarkable variety of perspectives.

The question of when the law assumed the dominant role in defining ethical medical practice can be debated, but my nomination is at the “Doctors’ Trial” at Nuremberg. The end of World War II was marked by the birth of the international human rights movement, the formation of the United Nations, and the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The “Doctors’ Trial” was an important piece of this picture. U.S. judges, presiding under military jurisdiction in Nuremberg, Germany, found fifteen Nazi physicians guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity for their actions in conducting or authorizing lethal and torturous medical experiments on concentration camp inmates. More importantly, the court articulated what has come to be called the Nuremberg Code, which sets forth the legal requirements for human experimentation. The most significant provision is the first of ten: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential . . . the person involved should have the legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. . . “

The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) declares bodily integrity central to both human rights and human dignity, providing in Article 5, for example, that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Most physicians, of course, do not view human experimentation as torture, but the treaty that followed the declaration, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, made the link unmistakable by adding an additional sentence to the UDHR’s Article 5 in its Article 7: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.” This is, of course, now a fundamental precept of international human rights law. Moreover, under the treaty, Article 7 is nonderogable, even “in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation.”

In the United States, our courts later adopted and applied the doctrine of informed consent to the therapeutic as well as the research setting, reversing the Hippocratic ethic by placing choice in the hands of patients rather than physicians. As pivotal as the doctrine of informed choice is now to both law and medical ethics, its application in some circumstances remains contested, as Robyn S. Shapiro discusses in her overview of the controversy surrounding the payment of living donors for solid organs. Lawyers continue to be called upon to advocate for their clients whose right to bodily integrity has been ignored or abused. Moreover, physicians sometimes have affirmative obligations to act to help their patients that reliance on informed consent alone cannot resolve. Kathryn L. Tucker, for example, accurately describes the epidemic of untreated pain as a “human rights tragedy.” She could as accurately have described physicians’ failure to treat their patients’ pain and suffering as torture. It is a scandal that the medical profession ignores such widespread suffering, and it will likely take vigorous legal action to change medical practice in this realm. Similarly, Shawna L. Parks correctly notes that institutionalizing juvenile offenders should require that they be provided basic mental health care. Susan Berke Fogel and Lourdes A. Rivera demonstrate how religious guidelines can frustrate and prevent good medical care, and why lawyers should insist that when the two are in conflict, “the medical needs of the patient must prevail.”

Looking at informed consent directly, Stephen F. Hanlon and Robyn S. Shapiro argue persuasively that there is more at stake in human experimentation than physical injury: such experimentation without consent is also an affront to human dignity, and courts should recognize a dignitary harm even in the absence of physical harm when informed consent is not obtained. The Nazis showed us the extreme physicians could go to in the service of the state. Kathy Swedlow helps us understand that when physicians act as agents of the state to involuntarily medicate a death row inmate so that person (certainly not a “patient”) can be executed, the drugging can meet neither the legal requirement of informed consent nor the Hippocratic injunction to “do no harm.” And Thomas May reminds us that soldiers are people too. Although soldiers may relinquish their right to refuse medical treatment upon enlisting, they retain, as all humans do, their right to refuse to be subjects of human experiments-and so retain their right to refuse experimental or investigational drugs and vaccines, even in wartime. The Nuremberg Code is, after all, a wartime document and made no exceptions for informed consent for either war or the soldiers assigned to fight it.

It should go without saying (but, of course, it doesn’t) that civilians retain all of their rights to bodily integrity, even during war and times of domestic emergencies, and that under no circumstances should civilians be subjected to forced vaccination or other bodily invasions-even those deemed “necessary” by military, medical, or public health officials. Human rights lawyers should resist current proposals to grant public health officials the power over the bodies of civilians during a bioterrorist attack or other public emergency. Such proposals are not only destructive of basic human rights, they are counterproductive in that they replace a medical and public health system based on truthful communication and trust with one based on fear and arbitrary power. Terrorism by others is no excuse for torture by us.

Read more from