patrick.net

Devout Christian social worker suing NHS-backed care firm which rescinded £25,000-a-year job offer over his beliefs on LGBTQ+ movement

In a series of very influential studies, McKinsey (2015; 2018; 2020; 2023) reports finding statistically significant positive relations between the industry-adjusted earnings before interest and taxes margins of global McKinsey-chosen sets of large public firms and the racial/ethnic diversity of their executives. However, when we revisit McKinsey’s tests using data for firms in the publicly observable S&P 500® as of 12/31/2019, we do not find statistically significant relations between McKinsey’s inverse normalized Herfindahl-Hirschman measures of executive racial/ethnic diversity at mid-2020 and either industry-adjusted earnings before interest and taxes margin or industry-adjusted sales growth, gross margin, return on assets, return on equity, and total shareholder return over the prior five years 2015–2019. Combined with the erroneous reverse-causality nature of McKinsey’s tests, our inability to quasi-replicate their results suggests that despite the imprimatur given to McKinsey’s studies, they should not be relied on to support the view that US publicly traded firms can expect to deliver improved financial performance if they increase the racial/ethnic diversity of their executives.

Shareholders should SUE the boards that imposed low-competence diversity hire executives on them. This was a direct violation of the responsibility of boards to act in the interests of shareholders.

On July 14, 2022, Philipp Kruse filed a carefully worded comprehensive legal complaint against the Swiss Regulatory authority known as Swissmedic for their role in enabling deployment of the COVID mRNA “vaccines” into the population of Switzerland. On 28 March 2024, the complaint was refiled with substantial updates and amendments. ...

Criminal acts performed by Swissmedic

Initial authorization that breaches the law and duties

Perpetuation of illegal authorizations that breach the law and duties

Disregard for all additional indications of risk

Absence of a "life-threatening or debilitating" disease

No benefits from ineffective to harmful mRNA injections

Omission of the most elementary safety and effectiveness tests

Swissmedic blocked effective alternative treatments

Benefit-risk analysis – Clearly a negative profile

Continuing despite an obviously negative benefit-risk ratio

No product monitoring proportionate to the risks

Misleading information not proportionate to the risks

Medical malpractice – lack of information, lack of reports

Swissmedic out of control and acting to the detriment of the state and the population ...

Having filed this legal complaint, he posted a PDF copy on “X” for download and review, promptly resulting in “X” designating his account “Temporarily Restricted” due to “unusual activity”. ...

In the present case, we are dealing with the greatest danger to and violation of human health caused by medicinal products themselves and by misinformation from public officials in this regard that has ever occurred in the history of Switzerland. The mRNA "vaccines" against SARS-CoV-2 infections, which are largely ineffective and pose an above-average risk to human health, have been proven to pose a far greater threat to the healthy population than the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen itself, against which these "vaccines" were supposed to protect.

Covid Shot Mandate Suit Moving Forward

On the morning of October 4, 2021, anesthesiologist Dr. Christopher Rake went to work at the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles. Within hours, he was gruffly frog marched by security out of the hospital.

His crime? Not wanting to get the covid shot.

Rake is now one of six main plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against the Board of Regents of the University of California system, a suit that the UC system tried - but failed - to get thrown out in January.

“This is one of the most important covid-related cases in the country,” said attorney Warner Mendenhall. “We are striking at the very heart of pandemic insanity.”

At the core of the case are issues being able to decide what happens to one’s own body, free speech, employment retaliation, medical ethics, government overreach, and the very idea of “informed consent” codified in California law after the Nazi Doctors trials in Nuremberg after World War II.

“This is one of the most important covid-related cases in the country,” said attorney Warner Mendenhall. “We are striking at the very heart of pandemic insanity.”

At the core of the case are issues being able to decide what happens to one’s own body, free speech, employment retaliation, medical ethics, government overreach, and the very idea of “informed consent” codified in California law after the Nazi Doctors trials in Nuremberg after World War II.

One thing that people may not know is that federal tort claims applies if you are a victim of the federal government.

So, if my car is hit by an uninsured illegal, sue the federal government?

Pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca has admitted that its widely used Covid vaccine, branded Covishield, can cause rare side effects including blood clots and low platelet count.

Covishield was developed by the British-Swedish company in collaboration with Oxford University, UK, and produced by the Serum Institute of India. It was widely administered in over 150 countries, including Britain and India.

A class action lawsuit filed in the UK claimed that the vaccine led to deaths and severe injuries and sought damages up to £100m for about 50 victims.

One of the complainants alleged that the vaccine caused him a permanent brain injury after he developed a blood clot, preventing him from working.

While AstraZeneca has contested these claims, it admitted for the first time in one of the court documents that the vaccine can “in very rare cases, cause TTS”, or Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome, which is characterised by blood clots and a low blood platelet count in humans.

“It is admitted that the AZ vaccine can, in very rare cases, cause TTS. The causal mechanism is not known,” the company said in the court documents in February, The Telegraph reported.

A jury has reached a $1 million verdict against a private high school in Mountain View that expelled two students after a photo of them wearing acne masks was interpreted as blackface.

The students, Holden Hughes and Aaron Hartley, will get $500,000 each from St. Francis High School after they were swept up in a racial controversy amid the Black Lives Matter movement.

Hughes and Hartley will also get reimbursed for tuition, which was estimated to be $70,000 total for their three years attending the school at 1885 Miramonte Ave.

Their attorney, Krista Baughman, said the ruling extends protections from a California Supreme Court decision that mandated fair procedure rights for students at private universities.

This case extends these protections to private high schools, including religious institutions, ensuring students receive notice of charges and a fair opportunity to respond before getting disciplined, Baughman said. ...

The picture of the boys, taken at a sleepover in August 2017, went viral during the Black Lives Matter movement and sparked a parent-led protest in June 2020.

Within 24 hours, administrators said the boys could either leave or be expelled ahead of their senior year, the suit said.

The blackface was actually a green face mask that darkened, the suit said.

Parent Alicia Labana was named in the original lawsuit for allegedly posting the photo on Facebook while organizing a march at the school. ...

Because of the controversy, Hughes said his family put up security cameras around their home and asked Los Altos police to do extra patrols.

Hartley said he had to move three hours away to finish high school online without getting harassed or ridiculed.

The boys said the controversy jeopardized their future college and career prospects. They lost friends, sleep and the final year of their high school experience, according to the lawsuit.

Éloïse Boies, pictured above, is a YouTuber with the channel 'Élo Wants to Know.' She has been granted authorization to proceed with a class-action lawsuit against YouTube. The lawsuit alleges that the platform has been censoring content related to the pandemic, vaccines, and the Covid-19 virus that it disagrees with, citing it as medical misinformation.

The plaintiff, Éloïse Boies, who is legally represented by William Desrochers, alleges that YouTube, owned by Google LLC, censored three of her videos. YouTube cited a violation of its platform policy, stating that Boies spread "incorrect medical information contradicting that of local health authorities or the World Health Organization (WHO) regarding COVID-19." ...

The plaintiff primarily argues that YouTube's content control related to the COVID-19 pandemic is an unlawful an intentional infringement on freedom of expression, which is protected by the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

Google contends that it hasn't breached the Charter since it's not obliged to offer a space for sharing videos regardless of their content. Additionally, it asserts that its platform is private and can be managed according to its own rules and preferences.

Superior Court Judge Lukasz Granosik mentions in his judgement that "Freedom of expression does not only mean freedom of speech, but also freedom of publication and freedom of creation. Granosik then quotes from the Supreme Court of Canada saying, "it is difficult to imagine a guaranteed freedom which is more important than freedom of expression in a democratic society."

Judge Granosik concluded after reviewing all the facts in the case that, "If Google manages and controls the content found on the YouTube platform and therefore takes actions in this direction, it cannot immediately deny all responsibility. If it carries out censorship by preventing certain people from posting videos and prevents other people from viewing these same videos, it thus hinders the free circulation of ideas and exposes itself to having to defend its ways of doing things."

" https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/05/justice-texas-cop-fired-attending-j6-protests-receives/ "

The fact that it took an independent, small-firm lawyer without decades of constitutional law experience to beat back an unconstitutional amendment, underscores the equally astonishing fact that our big law firms are hopelessly conflicted, AWOL, and financially unable to effectively defend our freedoms. The problem is that most big firms are greedy for taxpayer dollars and are terrified of getting slapped on a government blacklist for daring to oppose a law popular among government elites.

Utah mom sues AstraZeneca, claiming she was left ‘permanently disabled’ in COVID vaccine trial

By Emily Crane
Published May 14, 2024

A Utah mother who says she was “permanently disabled” after taking part in the US clinical trial of AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine is suing the drug manufacturer because it failed to cough up enough cash to cover her medical expenses.

Brianne Dressen, 42, was “the picture of good health” when she started the British-made vaccine’s clinical trial in 2020 — but ended up developing a severe neurological condition, the lawsuit filed Monday alleges.

“I walked into the clinic fine, and walked out the beginning of a nightmare I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy,” Dressen said, per the court papers.

SoCal district to pay $360K to teacher who was fired after refusing to follow transgender policies

A Riverside County school district has agreed to pay $360,000 to settle a lawsuit from a former teacher who was fired last year after refusing to adhere to policies regarding transgender or gender-nonconforming students, citing her Christian beliefs.

Jessica Tapia, who taught physical education at Jurupa Valley High School, claimed in her wrongful termination lawsuit that her free speech and religious rights had been violated. She had refused — hypothetically, in statements to district personnel — to use students’ preferred pronouns, to allow them to use the locker room matching their gender identity, or to “withhold information” from parents about their child’s gender identity, according to the federal lawsuit.

The Jurupa Unified School District did not admit any wrongdoing, but agreed to pay Tapia $285,000, as well as $75,000 for her attorneys’ fees, according to the settlement agreement signed Tuesday. Tapia also agreed not to seek future employment with the district, and both sides agreed to not disparage each other or file future lawsuits.

Julianne Fleischer, one of Tapia’s attorneys, called the settlement an “incredible victory.”

“Her religious beliefs were not accommodated when they could have been,” said Fleischer, legal counsel for Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a Murrieta-based nonprofit religious liberties group. “We think it sends a strong message that there’s a price to pay when you ask a teacher to lie and withhold information.”

“We think it sends a strong message that there’s a price to pay when you ask a teacher to lie and withhold information.”

Although many people have lost potential claims due to the inability to file within the statute of limitations, the fight is continuing and rulings are giving us ammunition for the next time, if our government is stupid enough to trigger one.

A great ruling today in New York’s Nassau County in SCOTT D. MANTEL, as Administrator for the Estate of DEBORAH BUCKO v. SOUTH NASSAU COMMUNITIES HOSPITAL d/b/a MOUNT SINAI SOUTH NASSAU. Congratulations to Attorney Steven M. Warshawsky!

From the Court:

As an initial matter, the Court notes that on this record, as thus far developed, there appears to be no dispute as to South Nassau being a “covered person” or Ivermectin being characterized as a “covered countermeasure” within the ambit of PREP. However, contrary to South Nassau’s assertions, the Plaintiff’s complaint neither “pleads a ‘claim[] for loss…relating to’ the use and administration of covered countermeasures to treat COVID-19” nor does it “arise[] solely from...[South Nassau’s] acts and decisions in dispensing covered countermeasures to...[the Decedent] for the treatment of her COVID19 infection”(NYSCEF Doc. No. 17 at pp. 2, 11). Rather, in stunning contrast to South Nassau’s assertions, the complaint alleges, with particularity, that South Nassau “acted wrongfully and negligently, by repeatedly refusing to administer ivermectin to...[the Decedent]” notwithstanding it “having been prescribed” by Dr. Clark and “despite clear evidence in the medical records that...[the decedent’s] condition showed significant improvement once the ivermectin treatment was initiated” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 5 at ¶ 60). In the instant matter, PREP confers “immunity only from ‘any claim for loss that has a causal relationship with the administration to or use by an individual of a covered countermeasure’” (Hudak v Elmcroft of Sagamore Hills, 58 F4th 845, 849 [6th Cir 2023] quoting 42 USC § 247d-6d [a][2][B]) and not with respect to “such a measure’s non-administration or non-use” (Hampton v California, 83 F4th 754, 763 [9th Cir 2023]), the latter of which is the central predicate upon which the Plaintiff’s complaint is based. Consistent with the above, the factual claims alleged in the complaint, which must be accepted as true and afforded the benefit of every favorable intendment (Nonnon v City of New York, supra at 827), are unequivocally based upon South Nassau’s “non-administration” of Ivermectin and accordingly the immunity afforded under PREP is inapplicable (Hampton v California, supra at 763).

Parents of two girls who allegedly died due to adverse effects after receiving Covid-19 vaccination have welcomed the Supreme Court's move seeking information from the government over the deaths of the girls.

Parents of 18-year-old Rithaika from Hyderabad and Karunya, 20, from Coimbatore had filed a petition in the top court last year, alleging that the girls died due to severe complications a few days after they received their first shot of vaccination.

"The SC has admitted our petition and the legal process of getting justice to our daughters' death has begun," said Venugopalan Govindan, Karunya's father. "These two lives lost are just representatives of countless other lives which have been lost similarly. I have hope that this will eventually result in necessary reparative measures and, more importantly, paving way for setting such processes in the country that will prevent the recurrence of such events in future."

Yesterday, we received a terrific judicial decision from another unlikely place — the Ninth Circuit, which before Trump’s historic appointments, lawyers used to lampoon as the “Ninth Circus.” But the Ninth has become one of the most reliable protectors of Constitutional freedom from the worst excesses of the pandemic. Yesterday’s decision added to the Court’s admirable library of liberty.

In Health Freedom Defense Fund vs. Los Angeles United School District, the Court of Appeals overturned the federal court’s dismissal of a lawsuit by LAUSD teachers over the District’s 2021 vaccine mandate, which has continued, in fits and starts, ever since. The decision included three remarkable features.

First, LAUSD tweaked its strict vaccine mandate after the plaintiffs sued the first time. The tweak allowed a ‘testing alternative.’ The LAUSD then successfully argued the plaintiff’s first case was moot. Right after that first case got dismissed, LAUSD promptly revoked its testing alternative. So the poor, exhausted plaintiffs re-filed and sued again.

Again the federal court dismissed their case, this time on the merits. The plaintiffs appealed. Then, following a contentious appellate hearing, having enjoyed its first go around, the LAUSD again rescinded its vaccine requirement and again asked for the case to be dismissed as moot.

But the Court of Appeals saw right through that cynical ploy:

"LAUSD’s pattern of withdrawing and then reinstating its vaccination policies is enough to keep this case alive. Twice LAUSD has withdrawn its policy only after facing some litigation risk.
Litigants who have already demonstrated their willingness to tactically manipulate the federal courts in this way should not be given any benefit of the doubt. LAUSD’s about-face occurred only after vigorous questioning at argument in this court, which suggests that it was motivated, at least in part, by litigation tactics.
This case is not moot."

Next, in a wonderful development, the Court distinguished the horrible, ancient Supreme Court case the government wielded like a club during the pandemic, Jacobson vs. Massachusetts. You’ll love the reason why—because Jacobson was about vaccines, and the covid shots aren’t really vaccines:

"The district court held, applying rational basis review under Jacobson, that the Policy satisfied a legitimate government purpose. But the district court’s analysis diverges from Jacobson.
In Jacobson, the Supreme Court balanced an individual’s liberty interest in declining an unwanted smallpox vaccine against the State’s interest in preventing disease. The Court explained that the “principle of vaccination” is “to prevent the spread of smallpox.”
Jacobson, however, did not involve a claim in which the compelled vaccine was “designed to reduce symptoms in the infected vaccine recipient rather than to prevent transmission and infection.”
The district court thus erred in holding that Jacobson extends beyond its public health rationale—government’s power to mandate prophylactic measures aimed at preventing the recipient from spreading disease to others—to also govern “forced medical treatment” for the recipient’s benefit."

The justices were skeptical of the government’s evidence of vaccine benefits:

LAUSD only provides a CDC publication that says “COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.” But “safe and effective” for what? LAUSD implies that it is for preventing transmission of COVID-19 but does not adduce judicially noticeable facts that prove this.

Finally, even more encouragingly, in a concurring opinion, one of the judges recognized a Constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment:

"The district court further erred by failing to realize that these allegations directly implicate a distinct and more recent line of Supreme Court authority, in which the Court has stated that “[t]he principle that a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment may be inferred from [the Court’s] prior decisions.”
In Washington v. Glucksberg, the Court explained that Cruzan’s posited “‘right of a competent individual to refuse medical treatment’” was “entirely consistent with this Nation’s history and constitutional traditions,” in light of “the common-law rule that forced medication was a battery, and the long legal tradition protecting the decision to refuse unwanted medical treatment.”
Given these statements in Glucksberg, the right described there satisfies the history-based standards that the Court applies for recognizing “fundamental rights that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.”
The Supreme Court’s caselaw thus clarifies that compulsory treatment for the health benefit of the person treated—as opposed to compulsory treatment for the health benefit of others—implicates the fundamental right to refuse medical treatment."

This reasoning is a legal earthquake. For years, we anti-mandate lawyers have argued that the covid mandates were unconstitutional. But the government lawyers have always argued “there is no Constitutional right not to take a vaccine.”

Now, a federal appellate judge — one step below the Supreme Court — just cut through the confusion like a hot needle through butter, agreeing with our arguments. Since the shots are not vaccines, Jacobson does not apply. Since they don’t protect others, mandated shots are legalized battery.

It is the concurrence heard round the world. It’s taken three years to reach this point, which is lightning speed in the law. As I keep saying, this is not over.