You may also like...

Popular Articles...

2 Comments

  1. Soliciting is not unconstitutional & SCOTUS has issued rulings to that effect, citing 1A protections. This was the result of a political candidate being barred from campaign activity in residential neighborhoods. And given the curious rulings of the current SCOTUS bench recently, I don’t see that ruling being overturned.

    Conversely, I don’t see the ROI of health departments or community agitator groups pursuing hundreds of police departments & city governments in the courts after stalking residents to push an experimental gene therapy, so the likelihood of that happening is slim. Nevertheless, that doesn’t make the act of solicitation itself, unconstitutional. You just have to know how to beat them at their game. Information is POWER.

    For example, my town has strict ordinances governing soliciting & they *are* enforced. As it so happens, I live in the county that borders Lake County, IL (the originator of the document you’re citing). The directive in that document instructing door knockers to “ignore no soliciting signs because you (door knockers) are providing critical information and resources” is comical. I’m sure every cultist or political candidate thinks what they have to say is “valuable” too, yet by legal standards, they are still soliciting. Facts have a funny way of overriding misguided bureaucratic opinions. Unannounced, uninvited incursions on to anyone’s property IS by its very definition, solicitation, regardless of the Lake County Health Department’s protestations to the contrary. Facts don’t care about bureaucrats opinions.

    What they *are* doing with this reckless wording, is luring well-meaning workers into confrontations with angry homeowners. These people citing false legal definitions about what does or does not constitute solicitation based on that absurd wording could definitely escalate an already contentious situation. This administration is spoiling for the kind of totalitarian crack down a confrontation like this would justify, so I am fairly certain the advice in that communique to trespass on people’s property & completely disregard posted signage is intentional.

    Soliciting is NOT limited only to those who are engaging in door-to-door sales. It can be in the form of proselytizing on behalf of a church, conducting surveys, political canvassing, charity fundraising, and yes, “sharing unsolicited critical information and resources” (lol).

    If the county’s health dept wants to pay my municipal police dept $300 per goon, for background checks & a 3-day license, cool. They will find that about 90% of the homes here have “no soliciting” signs on the door, which means they can’t knock, ring a bell or make noises, attempting to gain the attention of an occupant for the purpose of seeking an audience. Violations will result in losing solicitation eligibility for 5 years & a fine of not less than $500 for each violation.

    We are a very tight knit conservative town in a conservative county & consider solicitors of all stripes to be predators & a public nuisance.
    We had a large, residential natural gas explosion 3 years ago that made national news. Within hours, shady contractors were approaching traumatized homeowners in that neighborhood looking for work. Our city council tightened the existing soliciting ordinance in June 2020 to clamp down on this activity & it applies to both for-profit & all other forms of solicitation.
    Here, “No for-profit Solicitors Invited” signs prohibit merchant solicitors. Other forms of solicitation are permissible. “No Solicitors Invited” signs prohibit all forms of solicitation activity on that property…like, don’t even think about ringing the doorbell or knocking. We have the latter sign on all entry doors to our home (front & rear), so that these useful idiots can’t claim they didn’t see the sign on our front door by sneaking around to the back. The signs are posted in both locations. If we didn’t have such specific wording here regarding signage, I would have otherwise just posted a “No Trespassing” sign on the property line.
    But it is critical for everyone to research & comprehend what local, county &/or state laws stipulate before reacting or over reacting. Know the law, know your rights, know theirs, & record EVERYTHING if you do open your door to them. I know this sounds crazy, but I wear a body cam at all times & record all encounters outside my door at this point. If I hit record, I have to inform the other party that I am recording them (state surveillance law). They don’t have to consent, but they do have the right to know.

    My advice to all is simply this: Don’t answer the door. They can gather a lot of data on you even if you say nothing to them & slam the door in their face. Avoid giving them any opportunity to categorize you: your race, gender, demeanor, etc.
    While a court may rule our municipality’s solicitation ordinance to be unconstitutional, we don’t care. You’ll be dealt with now & you can squawk about it to someone who cares later! 😀
    This is what I mean about being informed. I have the entire ordinance printed out & will be quite happy to correct their misguided belief that solicitation doesn’t apply to them. Under our ordinance, it is the home’s occupant who defines what constitutes a solicitor on his or her property… not the city and definitely not a county health department.

    It can also be reasonably argued that they *are* soliciting on behalf of for-profit pharmaceutical companies, whose profits are directly impacted by “sharing” their… what was it again?…”critical information & resources”? with the intent of seeking to isolate & manipulate individuals using paid propagandists masquerading as subject matter experts. Their sole intent is increasing gene therapy sales. The occupant(s) being targeted are nothing more than cash registers who represent potential revenue for the pharmaceutical companies. Period. So yeah, it’s solicitation any way you slice it.
    They’re selling a shot. If they were genuinely sharing critical information & resources, they would disclose the EUA status of their gene therapy, & what that means, as well as existing therapeutic alternatives, such as HCQ, ivermectin, etc.
    Sorry for the long winded post, but thought this might be helpful to folks.

    1. Thank you for this excellent background, and we appreciate that you took the time and thought to prepare it to help educate others! BRAVO!
      We welcome you to join our efforts on the consumer education front.
      Dr. Vliet and the Team at Truth for Health Foundation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *