« First « Previous Comments 179 - 218 of 494 Next » Last » Search these comments
Pfizer cannot use the government as a shield from liability for making false claims about its COVID-19 vaccine, lawyers for a whistleblower argued in response to Pfizer’s motion to dismiss a False Claims Act lawsuit. ...
“Respondents claim fraudulent certifications, false statements, doctored data, contaminated clinical trials, and firing of whistleblowers can be ignored based on the theory that they contracted their way around the fraud,” lawyers for Brook Jackson, who worked as regional director at one of the clinical trials used to develop the Pfizer vaccine, wrote in their Aug. 22 response.
“A drug company cannot induce the taxpayers to pay billions of dollars for a product,” they countered, “that honest data would show poses more risks than benefits, and that ignores the actual contract and the law itself.”
Jackson’s lawsuit alleges that Pfizer and two of its subcontractors violated the False Claims Act by providing bogus clinical trial results to garner the FDA approval of its COVID-19 vaccine.
Under federal law, individuals can sue on behalf of the government and win treble damages if they can prove an individual or company deliberately lied to the government.
One of Jackson’s attorneys, Warner Mendenhall, told The Epoch Times that the payout could be as much as $3.3 trillion.
“It would be enough to bankrupt Pfizer,” Mendenhall said.
Mendenhall, whose law firm has won multimillion-dollar False Claims Act cases, based his estimates on the more than $2 billion the U.S. government has paid Pfizer for more than 100 million doses of its COVID-19 vaccine. ...
While she is seeking compensation for her termination as part of her actions against Pfizer and the other companies, Jackson said she plans to donate any money she receives under her legal action against the companies to those injured by the vaccine.
“As far as I’m concerned, it’s blood money,” she said. “The world should be disgusted by what went on here with the shameful actions behind this dangerous vaccine.”
Bill Gates Hit with Indian High Court Notice over Vaccine Death
Billionaire Bill Gates has been issued with a notice from the Bombay High Court over a case that alleges the Microsoft co-founder is responsible for deaths related to COVID-19 vaccines.
A petition was filed in the court by a father who said the vaccine killed his daughter, the Hindustan Times reported.
In relation to the case, the High Court also sent a notice to the Indian government (Maharashtra and Union government) and the biopharmaceuticals company Serum Institute of India (SII).
The petitioner, Dilip Lunawat, is seeking Rs 1,000 crore ($125,451,200) compensation after his daughter, Dr. Snehal Lunawat, died after receiving the Covishield vaccine.
Mr. Lunawat blames the government, Bill Gates, and others responsible for spreading misleading information about the vaccine’s safety.
Gates is accused of contributing to the government’s mandates that forced medical professionals to get vaccinated. ...
She was vaccinated with Covishield, which is developed by the SII.
Days later, she suffered severe headaches and vomiting and was rushed to a hospital.
Doctors found she was bleeding in her brain, the petition said.
Lunwat says his daughter died as a result of side effects from the vaccine on March 1. ...
The petitioner has also sought a response from Gates, whose organization – the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – had partnered with the SII to accelerate the process of manufacturing to deliver 100 million doses of the vaccine.
He also sought a response from the Union government, Maharashtra government, and the Drug Controller General of India.
Lunwat says he is seeking justice for his daughter and “many more people who are likely to be murdered” due to similar cases of adverse effects, according to the petition.
A father and parental rights advocate won a major lawsuit against Maine Regional School Unit (RSU) after he was banned from the school district’s facilities for reading an obscene book that was in the school district’s own library.
After Shawn McBreairty, a father of two spoke out at his daughter’s own high school over the introduction of obscene books, parents from around the state asked him to speak up on behalf of their children.
After reading an obscene book in RSU’s libraries that described detailed sex teens between two underaged boys, the district banned him for obscenity.
McBreairty sued the school district for violating his first amendment rights and won $40,000.
Parents around the country have been pushing back against obscene books that push radical gender ideology and critical race theory on to children.
Vaccine damage to health. Compensation for a 16 year old: 750 euros per month for 15 years
September 16, 2022
T., aged 16, will be compensated by the state for the permanent damage of an autoimmune thrombocythemia caused by a dose of the anti Covid vaccine. And he will be entitled to 750 euros per month for 15 years.
September 20, 2022
Fact-checkers complain they’re constantly hit with lawsuits
Online fact checkers have great authority over what speech gets suppressed on mainstream social media platforms and a fact-check of a post on Facebook can result in that post being suppressed by as much as 95%.
Yet, despite their great power over what people can say, fact checkers are also increasingly frustrated at calls for more transparency about the way they operate and say they are being bombarded with freedom of information act (FOIA) requests and lawsuits. ...
Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit against California’s Secretary of State for making YouTube censor a video on election integrity posted weeks before the November 2020 election.
On September 22, 2020, Judicial Watch posted a video on election integrity on YouTube, titled: “**ELECTION INTEGRITY CRISIS** Dirty Voter Rolls, Ballot Harvesting & Mail-in-Voting Risks!” In the 26-minute video, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton discussed election topics like ballot harvesting, changes in states’ election procedures, vote-by-mail processes, and failures by states to update voter rolls.
The lawsuit alleges that the California Office of Elections Cybersecurity (OEC), overseen by California’s State Secretary Shirley Weber, contacted Google to have the video removed. The suit accuses Weber and her office of violating Judicial Watch’s First Amendment and other rights.
We obtained a copy of the complaint for you here.
According to records, on September 24, 2020, OEC’s social media coordinator Akilah Jones sent an email to Google to report the video.
“I am reporting the following video because it misleads community members about elections or other civic processes and misrepresents the safety and security of mail-in ballots. Thank you for your time and attention on this matter,” Jones wrote in the email.
A Google/YouTube representative replied to Jones on September 25, saying they would look into it. Later that day, the video was removed. Two days later, the Google/YouTube representative confirmed to Jones that the video had been removed for violating the platform’s policies.
According to the lawsuit, Weber and the OEC violated Judicial Watch’s First and Fourteenth Amendments, and civil rights established in the state of California’s constitution.
“Smoking gun documents show California government officials, who were being advised by the Biden campaign PR operation, caused YouTube to censor a key Judicial Watch video just before the 2020 election,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This egregious government censorship and election interference violated Judicial Watch’s civil rights, and our lawsuit seeks to stop and expose the growing corruption of leftist government officials colluding with Big Tech allies to attack the free speech rights of Americans.”
A Michigan mom is suing the Chippewa Valley School Board for violating her First Amendment rights. Sandra Hernden, with the help of the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, is taking legal action after facing retaliation from members of the school board. Hernden spoke out against the district's COVID-19 policies, and district officials responded by reporting her to her employer and then to the Department of Justice.
Hernden is a police officer and mom of three boys. When the Chippewa Valley School District turned to remote instruction in spring 2020 in response to COVID-19, Hernden witnessed the toll it took on her children, particularly her son with special needs. Without the in-person assistance and individualized attention that he once had, his grades plummeted. He suffered socially, too. When the board decided the schools would stay virtual in fall 2020, she knew she had to fight for her son.
"For two years, I have been demoralized, humiliated, discredited and demeaned," said Sandra Hernden. "I can live with a lot of things and be called a lot of names, but none of this will stop me from fighting for my children. I'm bringing this case not just for my family, but for all the families like me who feel they have no voice."
This woman – who is a police officer and special needs mom – was persecuted because she disagreed with the school board's insane policies.
Could you imagine telling Americans 10 years ago that they'd be reported and investigated by the FBI for free speech at school boards?
And for voicing anger at policies that are hurting their children, no less??
A few weeks ago Liam Sturgess and I had the opportunity to talk with Pfizer whistleblower Brook Jackson and one of her attorneys about her lawsuit against Pfizer, which is potentially the largest lawsuit in history in dollar terms. There are a lot of recent updates on the suit, which you can follow at her Twitter account.
https://nitter.pussthecat.org/iambrookjackson
... Will The Federal Government Allow This Trial?
That's no small question. If the government has a plan, that plan will dictate how far this case goes. The government could have simply disallowed the case, but it was allowed to proceed.
Now we're at the point at which a judge is deciding whether to accept Pfizer's motion to dismiss the trial. ...
If you have a good case, lawyers will take it for a modest cut of the winnings, like 50%.
If you have a good case, lawyers will take it for a modest cut of the winnings, like 50%.
BREAKING NEWS: CJ Law defeats NYC Vaccine Mandate. Judge strikes mandate down as unconstitutional, arbitrary & capricious. Historic victory for NY’s Strongest & the rest of NYC’s public; Chad LaVeglia
That all employees be taken back as of 6 am tomorrow and all their salaries be returned, that the Mayor et al. were wrong AND we always knew this; as I keep saying, we will punish them in courts
It is a victory for freedom and liberty and it is horrible that people were forced to get these COVID fraud dangerous vaccines and now it is in them and they cannot get it out of them. I know, but it is a victory and when we say we will get Fauci and Birx and Walensky and Bourla and Bancel and Francis Collins into a courtroom, with proper legal hearings, you best believe it. We will punish them all and take their money and jail many. You just wait!
And no, we will not let Fauci claim he is over 80 and we are taking advantage. No age card here little one!
Fauci must be tried and hanged for what he has done.
Could you imagine telling Americans 10 years ago that they'd be reported and investigated by the FBI for free speech at school boards?
And for voicing anger at policies that are hurting their children, no less??
Patrick says
If you have a good case, lawyers will take it for a modest cut of the winnings, like 50%.
More like 99%.
The reality is that the government knows a lawsuit is expensive, and they use that to their advantage. They assume most people won't attempt to spent the time, much less money, to hold them accountable, and they are 100% right.
richwicks says
Patrick says
If you have a good case, lawyers will take it for a modest cut of the winnings, like 50%.
More like 99%.
The reality is that the government knows a lawsuit is expensive, and they use that to their advantage. They assume most people won't attempt to spent the time, much less money, to hold them accountable, and they are 100% right.
What about a class action?
Dr. Mary Bowden has kept over 4,000 patients out of the hospital, and no one who has received early treatment under her care has died. Houston Methodist Hospital has claimed that she “is spreading dangerous misinformation which is not based in science.”
In her legal complaint filed against the hospital, Bowden says the public controversy has fundamentally changed her life, making her fearful and self-conscious, and that a Houston private school declined to admit her son “because of the statements published by Methodist.”
Greetings, Babylon Bee readers. You may or may not be aware of the case of Novak v. City of Parma, Ohio. A quick rundown for the layperson: Mr. Anthony Novak was temporarily jailed for creating a parody Facebook page of his local police department. He has thus far been unsuccessful in suing for damages, as the courts have ruled the police have qualified immunity, and so is asking SCOTUS to review the case.
While the knockoff Babylon Bee site The Onion filed a petition in support of Mr. Novak, we reject Mr. Novak's claim that parody is protected free speech, as parody is dangerous to those with cultural and political power. And it can hurt people's feelings.
On October 28, 2022, we at The Babylon Bee filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in this case to support the government, as nobody should be made fun of in this country.
Here is an overview of our unassailable legal argument:
https://babylonbee.com/amicus-brief
Dr. Mary Bowden has kept over 4,000 patients out of the hospital, and no one who has received early treatment under her care has died. Houston Methodist Hospital has claimed that she “is spreading dangerous misinformation which is not based in science.”
Among other things, Gill said a vaccine was not needed against the virus, that most people had natural immunity to COVID and there was no scientific rationale for keeping people at home to short-circuit its spread.
But the defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, a legal manoeuvre designed to put a stop early on to lawsuits that curb discussion in the public interest.
Justice Stewart ruled in their favour, saying that if the suit went ahead “its chilling effects would have an impact well beyond the parties to this case,” deterring experts and the media from calling out potential misinformation. “Dr. Gill herself is the most obvious cause of damage to her reputation,” the judge added.
Again, lawyers take all of it. They don't care about their clients. I can see you've never been part of a class action lawsuit.
ONLY $125k...in a society that awards MILLIONS to some stupid bitch who got hot coffee spilled on her lap in the McDonald's drive thru?
« First « Previous Comments 179 - 218 of 494 Next » Last » Search these comments
Corporations in particular are afraid of lawsuits because they have a lot of money. Sue them first.
But it's also useful to sue the government when they are violating our rights.
A nice suit started by https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.org/ :