WHISTLEBLOWERS: Senior at Aegis Living center was “chemically restrained” and forced to take COVID vaccine, then DIED

 by: Lance D Johnson

Aegis Living, a senior assisted living center, is coming under fire after four healthcare professionals blew the whistle on multiple accounts of elder abuse and medical fraud taking place at the Issaquah, Washington facility.

Image WHISTLEBLOWERS Senior at Aegis Living center was chemically restrained and forced to take COVID vaccine then DIED

Facility caretakers allegedly lie to residents about vaccines and “chemically restrain” the residents to force them to submit to the COVID vaccines. This is the level of fraud and abuse that occurs when seniors are isolated from their families, treated like property, and cordoned off like prisoners.

One of the whistleblowers at Aegis Living is a former medical technician named Cassandra Renner. In an interview with Project Veritas, she says that “Aegis Living is grossly taking advantage of severely vulnerable adults through fraud on care plans.” She also said signatures have “been forged multiple times” to make it appear that care was given, when it clearly was not. Her claims have been corroborated by multiple care directors.

Whistleblower reveals macabre practices used to force COVID vaccines on seniors

Most shocking of all, Cassandra Renner said that a “chemical restraint” was given to one of the residents she worked with “in order to get her to take the COVID vaccine.” The resident was lied to about the vaccine. The resident suffered medical complications from the shot and died as a result.

Renner testified on the resident’s behalf, “They had given her a PRN, like Xanax, and they were successful after giving her the PRN in order to get her to take the COVID vaccine. The resident was lied to about what shot she was receiving. She was told that it was the flu shot… She’s no longer with us and in her last moments of life, she had to have her dignity removed.”

China Absorbing Panama

China Absorbing Panama

Michael Yon:

CCP information War in Panama City, Panama: Confucius Institute

  

Seems the CCP is in control of the

Panama Canal now.

 

https://www.patreon.com/posts/49237739

 

From: Michael Yon <myonmail@michaelyon-online.com>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 6:30 PM
To: pat
Subject: China Absorbing Panama

 

Greetings,


From Panama: https://www.patreon.com/posts/49237739




Please support:

YOUR HELP IS VITAL: https://www.michaelyon-online.com/donations-new.htm



Patreon, PayPal, Venmo, Cash-App, BitCoin, Wire, and more, such as Zelle: Michael.Yon@gmail.com
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/MichaelYon
https://www.paypal.me/MichaelGift
VENMO - @Yon-Michael
BitCoin: https://commerce.coinbase.com/charges/YBW6DVWG

For offline gifts you can mail check or money order to:
Michael Yon
P.O. Box 2825
Winter Haven, Fl 33883


https://www.paypal.me/MichaelGift
VENMO - @Yon-Michael
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/MichaelYon
BitCoin: https://commerce.coinbase.com/charges/YBW6DVWG

Michael Yon's Dispatches is an Opt-in only Newsletter.

Unsubscribe  from this list.

Our mailing address is:

Michael Yon, LLC

P.O. Box 2825

Winter Haven, Fl 33883


Add us to your address book


Copyright (C) 2021 Michael Yon, LLC All rights reserved.

Forward this email to a friend
Update your profile

Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp

Colorado’s Red Flag Law

Tackling Questions About Colorado’s Red Flag Law and the Second Amendment

 
I don't see any room for abuse here, just trust the government to take your fire arms, jot down the serial numbers, give the ones back that are 'registered' and label you as a mental misfit in front of the entire community for a year.

Rutherford Institute Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Rein in Aggressive, Coercive, Potentially Violent Knock-and-Talk Practices by Militarized Police

by Rutherford Institute


WASHINGTON, D.C. — Warning of the danger to the public from the increasing use of “knock and talk” tactics by police, The Rutherford Institute has asked the United States Supreme Court to rein in aggressive “knock and talk” practices, which have become thinly veiled, warrantless attempts by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into “talking” with heavily armed police who “knock” on their doors in the middle of the night.

In asking the Court to review the case of Young v. Borders, Rutherford Institute attorneys denounced a lower court ruling that failed to hold police accountable for banging on the wrong door at 1:30 am, failing to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shooting and killing the innocent homeowner who answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense. Although 26-year-old Andrew Scott had committed no crime and never fired a single bullet or lifted his firearm against police, he was gunned down by police who were investigating a speeding incident by engaging in a middle-of-the-night “knock and talk” in Scott’s apartment complex.

n an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court, Institute attorneys argue that the police violated the Fourth Amendment in conducting the “knock and talk” because the late-night raid at Scott’s home was an abuse of society’s norms and a trespass on Scott’s property. The Institute has also issued constitutional guidelines to educate the public about what they can do to preserve their constitutional rights against the coercive use of “knock and talks” by police as a means of sidestepping the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against warrantless, unreasonable searches.

The Rutherford Institute’s amicus curiae brief in Young v. Borders is available at www.rutherford.org.

“Government officials insist that there is nothing unlawful, unreasonable or threatening about the prospect of armed police dressed in SWAT gear knocking on doors in the middle of night and ‘asking’ homeowners to engage in warrantless ‘knock-and-talk’ sessions,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “However, as Andrew Scott learned, there’s always a price to pay for saying no to such heavy-handed requests by police. If the courts continue to sanction such aggressive, excessive, coercive tactics, it will give police further incentive to terrorize and kill American citizens without fear of repercussion.”

On July 15, 2012, Deputy Richard Sylvester pursued a speeding motorcyclist, which he later had cause to believe might be armed and had been spotted at a nearby apartment complex. Around 1:30 a.m., Sylvester and three other deputies began knocking on doors in the apartment complex in the vicinity of the parked motorcycle, starting with Apt. 114, which was occupied by Andrew Scott and Amy Young, who were playing video games and had no connection to the motorcycle or any illegal activity. The deputies assumed tactical positions, guns drawn and ready to shoot. Sylvester, without announcing he was a police officer, then banged loudly and repeatedly on the door. Unnerved by the banging at such a late hour, Andrew Scott retrieved his handgun before opening the door. When Scott saw a shadowy figure holding a gun outside his door, he retreated into his apartment only to have Sylvester immediately open fire. Sylvester fired six shots, three of which hit and killed Scott. A trial court subsequently ruled in favor of the police, ruling that Scott was to blame for choosing to retrieve a handgun before opening the door. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Sylvester was protected by “qualified immunity,” reasoning that the use of excessive force did not violate “clearly established law.”