Nuremberg Justice Coming to the USA?

How my fight against UCLA and the entire University of California system might make it happen

I know many of you are waiting on a follow-up to my first post regarding the next Plandemic. Rest assured, it is coming.

However, I have an urgent need now: I need to introduce myself and offer you an opportunity to help us bring enforcement of the Nuremberg Code to the United States.

To get you up to speed on who I am and where I’m coming from: in 2021, I took a public stand against the Covid bioweapon injections at my workplace, UCLA Westwood Hospital (aka Ronald Reagan Medical Center). I was a 15-year veteran anesthesiologist who loved my job, worked 60+ hrs a week, avoided politics, shied away from any sort of spotlight and wasn’t particularly looking to become an overnight jobless (and homeless) sensation. After all, I’m an anesthesiologist, not a surgeon. I don’t need the spotlight. Let the surgeons have all the glory. However, I became so shocked at the gross violations of medical ethics, the daily infringements of the HIPPA act (“Hey, you, what’s your vaccination status?”), the propaganda about how the unvaccinated and unmasked were killing grandma, the assault on human decency, and the assault on our Constitutionally-protected, God-given freedoms that I couldn’t remain silent.

I will go into detail in a later post how, exactly, I got into this fight. But, suffice to say, my position in the fight gained national attention after October 4, 2021, when I filmed myself being brusquely walked out of UCLA Westwood hospital for simply refusing an experimental injection.

That led to multiple national and international interviews, including a spot on Laura Ingraham’s show:

Dr. Rake on Fox News with Laura Ingraham, describing how this is our generation’s World War III (5:51)

With that one act, I was putting my entire career on the line. In fact, my salary dropped to near zero for the next 2 years. However quickly my career collapsed, the decision that led me to that point was not a hasty one. I had agonized over it in the 2 months between the announcement of the “mandate”** on August 1, 2021 and UCLA’s implementation on October 4. I knew what I was getting into: sacrificing my home (how would I pay the mortgage without income?), my ability to put food on the table for my kids, and my children’s education at a private Christian school. Only by God’s precious grace did I avoid all three of those disasters (that’s a miraculous story in and of itself … for a later time).

---

**Mandate is defined (Blacks Law, 6th Ed) as: “A command, order, or direction, written or oral, which court is authorized to give and person is bound to obey. A judicial command or pre­ cept proceeding from a court or judicial officer, directing the proper officer to enforce a judgment, sentence, or decree.”

An appropriate question to ask: Which court or judicial officer wrote a command, order or direction that all UC employees were compelled to take the shots?

---

The following year, 2022, we filed a class-action lawsuit (Rake et al v the Regents of the University of California) based upon 6 causes of action:

1. Violation of Jus Cogens / CA Health & Safety Code § 24171 / Nuremberg Code – Jus cogens is Latin for “compelling law.” It is this idea that there are international peremptory norms which cannot be violated, even if a country’s legislature passes a law (or two countries sign a treaty) to violate said norms. In that vein, we allege, that there can be no justification for human experimentation without full and free consent. Even if the United States wrote a law that allowed employers to compel the Covid injections (which they didn’t), it would violate jus cogens. Fortunately for us, the Nuremberg Code has been codified into California law at California Health and Safety Code § 24171. Un-fortunately for us, the court recently dismissed this part of our case. However, we will continue to fight for this claim will be filing a petition with the court of appeals in an attempt to overturn that order. To me personally, this claim is the most important of all our claims, as the principle involved applies to the global population.

2. CA Constitutional Right to Privacy – the California Constitution has strong protections for the individual right to privacy. We argue that there is no compelling reason to invade bodily autonomy and intrude upon informational privacy. This, in my opinion, is the second-most important of our claims. This cause of action, if successful, will protect all employees under the so-called mandate. We are excited about the strength of our case in this claim. California law states that you don’t give up your right to privacy simply by signing an employment contract. Note that this protection applies to both public and private employers. Thus, if we are successful on this claim, we will protect all California employees from such infringements.

3. Tom Bane Civil Rights Act – use of force, threats or intimidation to give up one’s rights is illegal. Another beautiful protection codified into California law! This statute has its roots in the history of the fight against terrorism, but it readily applies to public entities which use intimidation and threats resulting in the loss of constitutional rights.   Unlike hate crime laws, the Bane Act doesn't require the deprivation of rights to be motivated by bias. Any intentional interference, regardless of motive, can be actionable.

4. FEHA – impermissible medical inquiry.  The Fair Employment and Housing Act is a California law administered by the California Civil Rights Department (CRD). The law itself is equivalent to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We allege that the UC made impermissible medical inquiries, under FEHA, of its employees. Any medical inquiry that is not justified by business necessity is impermissible.

5. FEHA – retaliation for resisting the unlawful inquiry. We allege that the UC retaliated against those employees who resisted or opposed the medical inquiry and we are seeking compensation for all employees who suffered this retaliation.

6. First Amendment Rights / Free Speech of Public Employees – unlawful retaliation for speech activity. We believe and allege that the University imposed the Covid bioweapon injections, especially targeting medical professionals, in order to pre-emptively remove them from the hospitals and campuses, where they would otherwise speak the truth about what was going on. As medical professionals, we have a unique understanding, position, perspective, and authority to shed light on the lack of scientific and historic support for forcing a new “vaccine” upon a population … a vaccine based on an entirely new and unproven platform (mRNA) and which had undergone none of the pre-requisite animal testing¹² or regular long-term safety testing³.

Can you see why we are so excited for our day in court? California, despite being known for its wacky political leanings, has excellent statutes that protect our personal liberties; they are very explicit and go beyond even those rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. As one of our lawyers, Warner Mendenhall (Ohio) said to the judge, “California is rare air.” He was referring to the beautiful body of legal protections we are afforded. It will be an honor to present our case in front of a judge whose job it is to defend such exquisite law against violations by any perpetrators, even state actors like the UC.

If you believe that you, not your employer, is the only one who has the right to make medical decisions regarding your body, please consider donating to support our legal fight.

Donate to Rake et al v UC Regents at GiveSendGo.com/NurembergNow

As of last month, we are now in discovery! We get to find out what the University of California knew and when they knew it. Based on the experience of members in our class and on public health data from around the globe, we believe the UC knew the shots were totally ineffective at stopping Covid and were injuring their employees.

This is an expensive phase of the case. In order to hire the right experts, search their medical databases, search their emails, and do all the requisite work to expose the UC’s corruption, this first phase will cost us a significant amount of money.

Donate to Rake et al v UC Regents at GiveSendGo.com/NurembergNow

If you can’t afford to donate, we would be grateful if you could help us in either of the following two ways:

1. Spread the word by clicking the “Share” button below to share this post with like-minded friends, family, and co-workers.

2. Post a prayer by clicking the “Pray” button below and then clicking on “Pray” on the right-hand side of our GiveSendGo page. (Prayers are needed as much as money is for this campaign).

CLICK HERE to Bring Nuremberg to the U.S.

In Unity, Strength, and Freedom,

Dr. Rake

1. By the Nuremberg Code, experimental interventions on human subjects must meet 10 criteria in order to be lawful. One of those criteria is that “the experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation … that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the [human] experiment.” In other words, animal experiments are a pre-requisite for human trials to make sure that the drug/device/intervention under study doesn’t kill the subject or cause great harm.

[Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code]

[Source: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199711133372006]

2. No animal studies were done before human trials. USA Today did a fact check to rebut the claim I just made, claiming that Pfizer and Moderna did perform animal studies prior to human studies

But, the human studies were started on March 16, 2020

And Pfizer didn’t publish the results of its animal study until 6 months after the human studies began (September 2020).

If the argument is that the animal studies occurred before March 16, 2020 and they just published the results late, they still only had 2 months to conduct animal studies, since the first copy of the viral genetic code wasn’t available until January 2020.

In other words, they had—at most—2 months to conduct “long-term” vaccine studies in animals started in January and ended in March, just before the clinical (aka human) trials began on March 16, 2020. Not long enough to obtain the pre-requisite amount of safety data.

And it doesn’t appear that Moderna even did animal studies.

[Source: Cruelty-Free Europe]

In fact, Moderna rushed things so much, that it took them only 2 days to design the vaccine. Is that a marvel of the efficiency of modern medicine or a sign of sloppiness?

In fact, when USA Today tried to de-bunk the “no-animal-studies” claim and offer evidence that Moderna did perform animal studies, they linked to Moderna’s website, ostensibly showing the data from said trials. Unfortunately for USA Today, that link leads to an error page.

The above link to “Cruelty-Free Europe” claiming that Moderna skipped animal trials is a good read. I recommend it. It accurately details how “unlikely” the rollout of a human-ready vaccine would be in just in 12 months’ time. It accurately states that the average development time for a safe and effective vaccine in humans is 15-20 years and that the fastest we’ve done it is 4 years (mumps vaccine). And yet, Pfizer did it in 9 months! Again, the first trials of the vaccine candidates in humans started March 16, 2020. The Pfizer and Moderna “vaccines” were available for mass consumption by December 2020. By January 2021, they were offering us, at UCLA, to be among the first recipients of the Pfizer vaccine. Guess what I said to that idea [it rhymes with “well sno”]

Remember the most important point here: We are alleging that this whole idea of mandating an experimental vaccine (ie, a vaccine in which proper animal studies were not done before clinical trials) violates the Nuremberg Code. Anthony Fauci himself clearly confirms that the evidence I’ve presented above is accurate: that they were doing concurrent animal studies (that were “interspersed, at the same time [as human trials]”) …

I can tell you, as a physician, I have never heard of concurrent animal studies. This is a very very unusual situation. I can’t say that it’s never happened before because, obviously, I’m not privy to the methods of how every single drug in human history has been approved, but it is very unusual, indeed, to have a new drug—especially a new vaccine platform—being rushed through and tested on human beings at the same time they are doing animal studies. In fact, the “vaccines” were approved without ever testing them in animals for toxicokinetics, carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, reprodutive toxicity, developmental toxicity, or effects on fertility, just to name a few. This was unethical, in my professional opinion. You always do animal studies before human trials. Always.

3. How could they have undergone long-term safety testing? They were released just months after the first trials were started.