Latest / Worldview Matters With David Fiorazo / Scott Schara: Motion Filed For New Trial In Grace’s Death Case

Transcript

Scott Schara: Motion Filed For New Trial In Grace’s Death Case · Worldview Matters With David Fiorazo

0:00
Welcome to World View Matters, discussing controversial issues, discerning current events,
0:10
defending biblical Christianity.
0:13
No topic, off limits.
0:16
And now, here's your host, David Fierazzo.
0:20
Hello and welcome listeners, viewers.
0:23
We appreciate you guys so much.
0:24
We've got Scott Shera in studio.
0:26
We're going to get to him in a minute.
0:27
We just need to remind you that we have entered into our third year of producing world
0:32
view matters and we're amazed at how, first of all, how fast time goes, but it's taken
0:36
off, praise God, and thanks to you.
0:38
So to continue speaking the truth and exposing evil, we depend on the faithful prayers and
0:44
generous support of you, our audience.
0:45
So right now, we're running a campaign to support us to get a tax deductible gift.
0:51
If you give $200 or a monthly supporter, I would give $25 a month, that would help us
0:57
immensely, and as a small token of our thanks, we'd be honored to send you our new stainless
1:03
steel tumbler etched with the reminder, keep speaking the truth about things that matter.
1:09
So please visit worldviewmatters.tv if you're able to give, but either way, we are so thankful
1:14
for your prayers and encouragement.
1:17
So praise God, and you heard this tumble off the, I've got the brand, this is the first
1:21
one out of the box.
1:22
So got one here now on display.
1:24
So brother, Scott, Shara is with us.
1:27
You know him from being Grace's dad, and the website is our amazing Grace.net.
1:35
Scott, in the new studio for the first time, welcome brother.
1:39
Well, it was just, it's like, aw, when you come into this place, it's just exceptionally
1:44
well done.
1:46
Praise God, and that's, that's out of my hands and out of my control, but they didn't,
1:50
yeah, they did an amazing job here.
1:53
As you're here, I can also announce again, we are moving forward friends with the biblical
2:00
summit next May, with worldviewmatters conference.
2:04
May 1st and 2nd, Scott, Shara is going to be one of 10 speakers, possibly 11.
2:11
We're waiting to hear from Jack Hibb's people, but we, I can't give you the website yet because
2:16
we're still working on some of the details and the registration of things like that, but
2:19
I can tell you who's going to be there.
2:21
Hopefully you can, Michael, Volvetree, Ministries, Olivier Melnick, and these people have all
2:28
been on the podcast.
2:29
These are great guests and friends.
2:30
Dr. Jake Jacobs, Tim Chafee, Answers and Genesis, Jay Seeger, the starting point project,
2:36
Laura Perry Smaltz, with Eden's Redemption, Gary Ka, with hope for the world.
2:42
Scott, Shara, our amazing Grace, Mark and Amber Archer, fearlessfeatures.org, and Elijah
2:49
Abraham is going to be there as well.
2:52
So friends, we'll give you details as we get them, but right now just pencil in or pen in
2:57
your calendar for next year May 1st and 2nd in Green Bay, Delta Hotel, two miles south
3:03
of the legendary Lambo field.
3:06
All right, Scott, got that out of the way now.
3:09
Before we get to some big news that you have that you could not talk about the last time
3:14
you were on, right?
3:16
And also, this is also news.
3:17
You're also writing a book and it's going to be out in January.
3:20
You have a rough cover.
3:22
What I mean by rough is the titles got something missing.
3:25
It's called, is the government, what's legally killing us?
3:30
Legally killing us.
3:31
It's not, so Scott didn't leave, is the government trying to kill us?
3:34
So that's not the accurate title, but that's the rest of the cover.
3:37
It looks great and at the bottom there by Grace's dad, I like that.
3:42
Yes, the reason legally in the cover, why that's important is because the government has
3:48
strung together a number of legal situations either through Congress or Supreme Court precedent
3:57
that have been designed to put in place to hasten death.
4:02
And that's the message in the book.
4:03
What happened is as the trial got over and I started to get back into the research that
4:09
I had put off for the trial, God put on my heart right down everything that you've learned
4:14
so far about the medical industrial complex.
4:16
Oh my goodness.
4:17
So I thought it's going to be like a 10, 12 page substack and also I start writing and
4:22
it's 100 pages.
4:23
Yes.
4:24
As a writer, as an author, I know what that's like.
4:27
You think, oh, it's not going to be that much than you end up going, why, at the end
4:30
of the book you're done, now I have to cut something because it's so long.
4:33
So I just want to go through some of the table of contents.
4:36
Are they going to change it all because I'm really what's intrigued me.
4:40
First of all, your introduction to the reality of standards of care.
4:45
We've talked about that on this podcast also establishing the culture in 1905.
4:51
What's that about?
4:52
Yeah.
4:53
So in 1905, the Supreme Court case, Jacobson versus Massachusetts became a precedent that
4:59
introduced collectivism to the population and then that Supreme Court case, Jacobson
5:04
who was a pastor, did not want to take the smallpox vaccine.
5:09
That case went all the way to the Supreme Court.
5:11
He introduced evidence that the smallpox vaccine was harmful.
5:15
The Supreme Court rejected it.
5:17
72 in favor of the state of Massachusetts and said that in times of great danger, the
5:23
government has the authority to implement whatever it decides for the good of the population
5:29
versus the good of the individual.
5:32
Without Jacobson versus Massachusetts, they could have never pulled off COVID.
5:36
Wow.
5:37
That's an amazing piece of history to know and understand because man, we've all, we all
5:42
learned a big lesson.
5:44
And I think a lot of people's eyes were opened during the government control of the, really,
5:50
the world economic forum and the government control during COVID.
5:54
And I hope that never happens again, but I have a feeling it's coming.
6:00
What's going on and your second point that you mentioned in the outline is it's happening
6:05
all the time.
6:07
So COVID was an event that opened people's eyes if they were willing, but it's been
6:10
happening all the time through standards of care.
6:13
And these were introduced in the 80s.
6:15
1980s?
6:16
Yeah.
6:17
In the early 80s.
6:18
And I was indoctrinated in the concept when I learned I had heart disease in 2018.
6:25
And they said that the cause, yeah, I felt fine, but I took the CT scan of the heart.
6:31
They said you've got to go on the statin.
6:33
I started researching and found out that what they told me the cause of my heart disease
6:37
was was a lie.
6:38
They said I was because I have high cholesterol.
6:41
Well, high cholesterol does not cause heart disease.
6:44
But the statin reduces heart disease or not heart disease that reduces cholesterol.
6:49
So they said you've got to go on the statin because it'll reduce your cholesterol.
6:51
Well, as I was researching, I realized that's a lie.
6:55
So when I came back in, I said, I'm not going to go on the statin and the nurse said,
6:59
Scott, you have to go on the statin.
7:00
I said, what do you mean?
7:01
Yeah, I have to.
7:02
And I said, I don't have to do anything.
7:04
She said, our Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates are based on what percentage of our
7:10
patient population adopts the standard of care and the standard of care for heart disease
7:15
is the statin.
7:16
I said, I'm not on Medicare and Medicaid.
7:18
She said, you didn't hear me.
7:20
She said, it's based on our patient population.
7:23
Because you're one of our patients, if enough people like you reject the standard of care,
7:27
we have to fire you as our patient because Medicare and Medicaid will reduce our reimbursement
7:33
rates.
7:34
And this is how they're doing it.
7:35
This is what I have found out.
7:36
It's one of the key elements of the book is that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid
7:40
Services controls health care in the entire country through reimbursement rates for standards
7:45
of care that are designed to hasten our doubts.
7:48
Oh, my goodness.
7:49
Speaking of reimbursement.
7:50
That's just, I mean, what you're sharing is disturbing, true, but disturbing.
7:55
But speaking of reimbursement rates, how can we not at least get a few bullet points
8:00
from you on what they did during COVID and how hospitals were given money for ventilators
8:06
for the COVID diagnosis?
8:09
Run down that for those who maybe aren't familiar with this information.
8:13
So the standards of care are indirect reimbursement rates.
8:17
And COVID was the first time that there were direct reimbursement rates.
8:20
So what happened during COVID, remember the idea of Jacobsen versus Massachusetts set
8:25
this up.
8:26
So then in 1980, the Health and Human Services Department was born.
8:31
In the 80s and 90s, the Health and Human Services Secretary was given unilateral authority
8:37
to determine a public health emergency.
8:40
So when they dreamed up COVID, the Health and Human Services Secretary deemed it a public
8:47
health emergency, then the FDA approved countermeasures.
8:53
And these countermeasures not only had immunity from liability, but had financial benefits
9:00
if the hospitals and doctors would do them.
9:03
So for example, if somebody's put on a ventilator for 96 hours, they received a $39,000 bonus
9:09
care of the government, care of the taxpayer, and a ventilator with COVID as a diagnosis
9:15
had a 90% kill rate.
9:17
Same thing happened with Remdesivir, a bonus for Remdesivir, a bonus if COVID was listed
9:21
on the desert.
9:22
Remdesivir was because heart problems, didn't it?
9:25
Kidney.
9:26
Kidney problems.
9:27
Okay.
9:28
It's unbelievable when you look at what happened behind the curtain, it's hard to even grasp.
9:36
I think what a lot of people listening and watching do not understand is how there can
9:43
be no accountability when there are so many statistics that prove people have died from
9:51
either the vaccine or a ventilator or Remdesivir, but I guess that's hard to prove, isn't it?
9:57
No, it's not hard to prove, but this is why the title of the book is the government,
10:02
is the government legally killing us.
10:05
So the prep act was passed in December of 2005, part of a defense appropriations bill
10:10
at Christmas time.
10:11
So they slide this in, the prep act gives immunity from liability any time a countermeasure
10:17
is used.
10:18
So they have immunity by statute, similarly standards of care have immunity by, as we
10:26
found out in Grace's trial, state statutes, and it's nefarious at a level that people
10:35
really can't understand.
10:36
Think about, you mentioned about vaccines, well, on November 14th of 86, Ronald Reagan
10:41
passed the National Childhood Vaccine Safety Act.
10:44
That provided immunity from liability for all vaccine injuries and deaths.
10:49
All the downstream liability was passed already in 1986.
10:53
What was named the National Vaccine Safety Act, so it didn't protect people that were
10:59
getting vaccinated, it protects the drug companies.
11:02
Exactly.
11:03
Oh my goodness.
11:05
This is, friends, this is so twisted and please monitor your heart rate right now, as you're
11:09
listening to some of this, because when you came on last time we had you on Scott, when
11:14
you were sharing it was right after the trial, or shortly after the trial had finished and
11:18
wrapped up.
11:19
And what the decision was made that, well, you didn't win that case, but you said, and
11:27
this is, I believe this is true, that you raised a lot of awareness and you still are
11:32
about what the system, your warning people and when the facts and the details in Grace's
11:40
death, in her case, were so clear.
11:45
I think most, I mean, didn't your lawyer or your attorney say that not necessarily it's
11:50
a slam dunk, but it's going to be very, very hard for them to prove that Grace did not
11:56
die.
11:57
Well, how did this happen?
11:58
Yeah, that's a great question.
12:00
So, yeah, so there's really both sides of the equation, they didn't prove that Grace,
12:07
they didn't prove their case based on what happened to Grace.
12:11
So Grace was given three contraindicated meds that euthanized her and the doctor put
12:17
an illegal do not resuscitate order on Grace's chart.
12:20
So they never proved those things, but they brought in experts that said, that's the standard
12:26
of care.
12:27
So those things are normal in a hospital ICU setting.
12:31
And so that's how the, that's, so they never disproved our case at all.
12:37
And what the attorney said, yeah, I mean, we have a fantastic case.
12:40
Otherwise, we wouldn't have done it, but what we're up against is not only the cognitive
12:46
dissidents of the population, but you're up against the beast.
12:51
You know, this, this medical industrial complex is, is part of the beast system.
12:57
The legal system is part of the beast system.
12:59
So now you think about the people on the jury, they're just average people.
13:03
They believe in the system just like I did before what happened to Grace.
13:07
So if they would have accepted our argument, it would have changed their life.
13:12
Because now you have to realize this system is corrupt.
13:15
Yeah.
13:16
And unfortunately, the media would probably refer to someone like you as either a right-wing
13:26
extremist or whatever, because you were against the vaccine, whatever.
13:31
But the other point that I want people to remember if they didn't catch that last interview
13:35
with you here is it was a, it wasn't a jury of your peers.
13:40
They were all young.
13:41
You said, you know, 20s, 30s, well, I would say they weren't all, they weren't all young.
13:45
I would say the average age was about 35, but still that's substantially younger than
13:51
you and I.
13:52
Yeah.
13:53
Right.
13:54
And that's, okay, why do we have, why do we bring that up?
13:56
Why do we have an issue with that, friends, a jury of your peers?
13:59
Well, there wasn't any, there weren't any senior citizens.
14:02
There weren't any probably ultraconservatives or, you know, people that were trying to fight
14:07
against the vaccine because young people were conditioned and programmed largely by social
14:12
media.
14:13
But by the government that, that time that the Democrats had full control of things.
14:18
So if you're, how long ago, that's four, five years ago, Scott, four years ago, four
14:24
years ago.
14:25
Four years ago.
14:26
So if you're a 35 year old would have been 31.
14:30
Correct.
14:31
29, 30, 31 year old, they, you pretty much know what side of the aisle or the discussion,
14:39
they come down on when it comes to vaccines or masks or social distancing.
14:44
You probably know because it was such a politicized issue.
14:47
Go ahead.
14:48
Well, even one of the jurors wore a mask throughout the entire trial.
14:53
The only juror that cited with us, I don't know statistically if she was the oldest, but
14:58
I believe she was the oldest juror.
15:01
She just appeared to be that she was closer to my age and, you know, she's the one that
15:04
cited with us.
15:05
Otherwise, 11 jurors cited with the hospital system.
15:09
What's interesting is you mentioned about the bias that they have coming in and that
15:15
became the basis for what I filed yesterday.
15:20
Okay.
15:21
This is the big news.
15:22
Yeah.
15:23
So this is the big news.
15:24
Yeah, this is what we wanted to get to.
15:26
So yesterday, I filed a motion for a new trial.
15:30
It's part of the public record now and it was based on the fact that the judge unilaterally
15:36
without discussion ruled against our team's motions and limony.
15:43
So I'm going to just define the term.
15:45
So motions and limony are things that both sides bring to the table that they either want
15:51
or don't want into evidence.
15:54
And it makes sense if you think about it because we wanted the case to be solely about
15:59
October 6th through October 13th of 2021, Grace's hospital stay.
16:04
The defense wants the case to be about all the things that I have discovered after the
16:10
fact so that they can paint me as a conspiracy, not right?
16:16
And the judge unilaterally disallowed 100% of our motions and limony without discussion.
16:24
So the premise of the new trial is based on the fact that we learned that the judge had
16:32
a personal bias against me after the trial.
16:37
And so the document presents that in a very logical form so that people can see what
16:43
was happening behind the scene.
16:45
So this was in May 19th and 20th.
16:48
We had the pre-trial and the judge listened to the defense's motions and limony all of them
16:54
and commented in main rulings on all of them.
16:56
When it got to ours, we had been talking about the idea.
17:01
You mentioned about the people learned for the first time what was going on because of
17:05
our trial.
17:06
And it's saved thousands of lives already.
17:08
But it's because it was livestreamed when we were having this discussion during that two
17:13
days.
17:14
And the defense was bringing up that, well, the new American shouldn't be the ones that
17:19
livestreamed the trial because they're not unbiased.
17:24
Well, the judge said, well, really nobody's unbiased.
17:26
Well, then our team brought up the fact that I had just done an interview with the
17:33
Milwaukee Journal Post Crescent and the judge hated that.
17:38
I mean, he, that's when he made the decision.
17:41
Why did he hate that?
17:44
The Post Crescent had previously, this is what I learned after the fact.
17:48
The Post Crescent had done some reporting on cases that he ruled on in the past.
17:54
So he had a bias, not just against the Post Crescent, but it ended up being against me, which
17:59
I found out after the trial.
18:01
And that's the basis for the motion for the new trial.
18:06
So any other details you want to bring out?
18:07
We've got less than 10 minutes left and I saw the note in there that it doesn't matter
18:12
whether you don't want money from this, whether it's a $1 or a million, this is not the
18:17
point you want to expose the evil and wake people up.
18:21
And basically, you're calling for repentance.
18:24
That's correct.
18:25
It's, you know, people don't really realize when I, you know, so in my deposition, they
18:30
ask me, you know, is this case about money?
18:33
Well, the reason they asked me that is because in a civil case, the case has to be about
18:38
money.
18:39
So they were trying to trap me with that question.
18:41
And so then I said, no, it's not about money.
18:44
Well, what do you mean?
18:45
I said, well, what I mean is that I realize a civil case has to be about money.
18:49
But we've already agreed, regardless of how much money we're awarded, we're not going
18:55
to take one penny.
18:56
We will not financially benefit from this case.
18:59
So then once the, the pre trial was done on May, so it was May 19th and 20th.
19:05
I think it was on the 21st then, Cindy and I signed the documents to transfer any of
19:11
the proceeds from the case to Grace's nonprofit.
19:15
So then that's become, became part of the affidavits filed with the motion for new trial
19:21
just to show the evidence that it backs up the claim that I was making in the deposition.
19:27
Okay.
19:28
I'm even on me to understand that so far.
19:31
So now this actually is typically a long drawn out process.
19:37
What do you anticipate now?
19:40
Now this is filed.
19:42
The next step and brother, I don't have the stamina that you do, but I'm thankful that
19:48
you're doing it because it is going to help save people's lives and hopefully raise
19:53
even more awareness.
19:54
Go ahead.
19:55
Well, that's a, that's the million dollar question, I guess you would say, but the, what
20:00
do I expect to have happened?
20:02
Well, there's two routes to go here.
20:05
One would have been to file an appeal and the other one is a motion to file for a new trial.
20:11
So I chose to not file for an appeal because of the legal team's recommendation that generally
20:20
it's a long road, a whole filing an appeal.
20:24
And so when I looked at the option of filing for a new trial, I thought that fits with
20:30
what we're called to do, which, you know, the judge is the one that I have an issue with.
20:36
So it goes back to him.
20:38
He gets a chance to make right his wrong.
20:41
What is my expectation?
20:44
Most people when they're faced with doing something wrong, they don't do anything.
20:48
The judge happens to be resigning on February 1st, interestingly related to what the
20:54
Post Crescent was reporting on.
20:56
I did not know, well, I knew because I had read an article about the judge in Wisconsin
21:02
watch that he was under investigation, but didn't really think anything of that.
21:06
But thought what happened is after the trial, that investigation that the judge was under
21:13
was closed and the Post Crescent reported that as part of the investigation, the judge
21:20
is resigning on February 1st.
21:22
Interesting.
21:23
The judge in the new trial.
21:25
Well, unless it was awful speedy, which I don't think that will happen, but just to get
21:29
the ruling would be fantastic.
21:33
So I don't know what's going to happen.
21:35
My obligation was to file and then the ruling would be either to allow a new trial to
21:41
move forward or to disallow or reject your and most judges have a lot of latitude.
21:52
And so he could just sit on it and do nothing with it and let it expire.
21:58
And these are the kind of things that happen.
22:00
So what's the limit for that, the time frame for how long does he have 90 days?
22:05
I don't know.
22:06
That's a good question.
22:07
I don't know the answer to that.
22:09
Because if he's biased against you, that sounds like something that a person like that
22:14
might do.
22:15
So friends, this is a big story.
22:17
This is a huge battle.
22:20
And I'm encouraging you to lift up Scott and Cindy Shera.
22:24
Pray for them.
22:25
Pray for God's favor.
22:28
Pray for this judge would be convicted or whoever is going to convict his heart would
22:33
be convicted that he would allow this to move forward.
22:37
Whoever is going to rule on this and make a decision.
22:40
And just to strengthen Scott as he continues to fight this battle.
22:44
Because this is huge.
22:45
And I was really surprised.
22:48
I shouldn't have been when you explained the jury.
22:52
I thought, oh, OK, that makes sense.
22:55
But they would not allow your evidence.
22:58
They would not allow during the trial.
23:01
I don't understand that.
23:03
Yeah.
23:04
So this idea, so I'm just going to drill this down a little bit more.
23:07
So the motions and lemme, I'm going to quote from this document because I think it's
23:12
important.
23:15
So in our motions and lemme, I'm just going to find the spot here, David.
23:24
So the motions and lemme are filed with the court way before the hearing.
23:28
So we had the hearing May 19th and 20th.
23:30
And we laid this out very specifically in our motions and lemme.
23:35
So we explained that the only possible purpose of a defendant's introducing plaintiffs religious
23:42
beliefs, which there's a state statute, 906, that you can't use plaintiffs religious
23:48
beliefs in a trial.
23:49
So they brought up your faith.
23:52
Correct.
23:53
And in Christ?
23:54
And would be to prejudice us the jury against him based on his personal religious convictions.
24:00
So that was part of our motions and lemme.
24:02
We didn't want the, in fact, our legal team even mentioned further.
24:07
I'm going to just mention one other thing here, just so you connect the dots all the way.
24:13
Attacking your credibility was their motive there.
24:15
Yep.
24:16
So they said allowing this evidence, this is again written in our motions and lemme that
24:20
the judge never had an argument over.
24:23
He just ruled unilaterally against allowing any of this.
24:27
So they wrote, this is our legal team wrote, allowing this evidence would, and this was
24:31
the evidence of the research I did post graces death.
24:35
Having this evidence would risk converting this trial into a referendum on vaccination
24:40
policies or hospital care generally, which would be improper and prejudicial.
24:45
So yes, of course, but, and that's what ended up happening.
24:49
The trial partially became about me instead of about grace.
24:54
And so that was all designed to influence the jury.
24:59
And so the defense did a great job once the judge disallowed our motions and lemme, they
25:04
jumped on it to their credit.
25:06
They did a great job of painting our family as conspiracy theorists.
25:11
So friends, we have a lot of newer viewers and listeners.
25:14
So you're wondering, and please go back to worldviewmatters.tv and look up one of the
25:18
past interviews with Scott Shera.
25:21
His daughter, Grace, who was 19, she had Down syndrome, she was the best way I can describe
25:27
is very articulate, fully functioning young woman.
25:30
She played violin, she drove a tractor, she loved Elvis.
25:34
I mean, she, she was an amazing, high functioning young woman with Down syndrome and they gave
25:40
her three drugs that should, in the hospital for cove that should have never been used together.
25:45
And that even on the package insert, did I ask you, I know I asked you that last time,
25:49
and I still don't understand was it was standards of care, their response to why they gave,
25:55
gave her those three lethal death, what's interesting, a minute and a half.
26:01
So the standard of care is the excuse, but then when you drill down the specific use of
26:06
morphine.
26:07
So she was already on press edX, the doctor claimed that he ordered press edX to be shut
26:12
off before the morphine.
26:14
She had three doses of lorazapam, but now he gives her the morphine and the claim to
26:18
give her the morphine was they needed to slow her breathing down.
26:23
Well, because she was getting agitated, well, she wasn't agitated at all.
26:27
The morphine was given at 615, at 609 in the medical records.
26:31
It said that grace had no blood pressure, blood pressure, undetectable.
26:36
She was somnolent for the whole hour and a half before that.
26:40
So our expert, Dr. Bredin, of course, said that this was the single most egregious act
26:47
he's ever seen in 46 years of medical practice.
26:49
And he said that under oath at the trial, at the trial.
26:52
So so much more friends, we're going to have Scott back and you'll probably see a little
26:56
bit more of him because he's going to be one of the speakers at the World View Matters
27:00
Biblical Summit, the conference next May 1 and 2 in Green Bay.
27:05
Brother, we will be in touch and I appreciate all the work.
27:07
I can't imagine how many sleepless nights you probably can't sleep.
27:11
You have to get up and work and do stuff.
27:13
So I know you're a type A probably so brother, thank you for coming in and we'll do this
27:18
again.
27:19
God bless you, brother.
27:21
Thanks, friends.
27:22
Thank you very much.
27:23
Continue to share and we appreciate it.
27:25
Also your support and your prayers.
27:27
God bless you and as always, keep speaking the truth about things that matter.