« First « Previous Comments 193 - 232 of 494 Next » Last » Search these comments
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?
Palo Alto father sues school district after son forced to wear face mask
PALO ALTO, Calif. - A.J. Gokcek’s son is entering his senior year at Palo Alto High, but a lawsuit filed earlier this month could overshadow progress toward his graduation.
"I have to protect my son’s right to an education. And also, his safety," he said.
Gokcek filed a lawsuit in Santa Clara County Superior Court on July 6. The suit comes after his son was removed from a summer school history class at Gunn High School because he wasn't wearing a mask.
He claims his son, who he wishes to be referred to as "T.G." to protect his identity, has a speech and communication disability that is worsened when forced to wear a mask.
The Palo Alto Unified School District barred the 17-year-old from completing the two-and-a-half-week class. His father declined to let a school nurse evaluate T.G.
"Before they send me off or my son off to go see a nurse for some kind of evaluation or a doctor’s note, I would love to see the policy. For some strange reason they will not provide that to me," Gokcek said.
The school district's website said it follows state health department guidelines. Gokcek’s suit asked for an injunction so that his son could return to class. But the court ruled it was moot because, by the time it reached the judge, the class had ended. So Gokcek is amending his suit and plans to file another temporary injunction for the coming school year.
The PAUSD offices were closed on Friday. But Superintendent Doctor Don Austin sent a statement to KTVU that reads in part, "This suit is the first of many challenges school districts across the state should expect regarding masking and vaccinations…Students without medical exemptions will be required to wear a mask until those rules are changed."
"I’d like him to have an education in the classroom, just like the other children," Gokcek said.
For now, T.G. could view his senior year from the outside looking in, as his father and district settle differences fueled by a pandemic-instituted restriction.
"... Students without medical exemptions will be required to wear a mask until those rules are changed."
The lawsuit alleges Nike fired two of the claimants, Doug Kerkering and Hannah Thibodo, because they had a “perceived disability” — their immune systems did not sufficiently protect them from COVID-19.
The plaintiffs’ attorney Scott Street told The Defender:
“Since the COVID shots do not prevent infection or spread, we contend that Nike viewed the unvaccinated as having inferior immune systems with respect to COVID which prevents them from being able to work. That is a perceived disability protected from discrimination under federal law.”
U.S. Lawyers Claim Ivermectin was never prohibited for treating COVID-19. FDA merely recommended not using it.
No legal prohibition authorized or justified hospitals to withhold the drug from dying patients. Let the lawsuits begin.
https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/us-lawyers-claim-that-ivermectin
U.S. Lawyers Claim Ivermectin was never prohibited for treating COVID-19. FDA merely recommended not using it.
No legal prohibition authorized or justified hospitals to withhold the drug from dying patients. Let the lawsuits begin.
Doctors' Lawsuit Forces FDA to Retreat on Prescribing Ivermectin as a Covid-19 Treatment
“Congress recognized the importance of letting doctors be doctors and expressly prohibited the FDA from interfering with the practice of medicine."
During a hearing brought by three doctors over the Food and Drug Administration's interference in their professional discretion to prescribe the drug Ivermectin as treatment for Covid-19, a government lawyer claimed that the FDA's position was merely a "recommendation." ...
Physicians are claiming that the FDA interfered with their ability to prescribe Ivermectin as an "off-label" medication. Doctors have even been retaliated against for prescribing Ivermectin, as well as Hydroxychloroquine.
Ivermectin was first approved by the FDA in 1966. The drug is known to have anti-malarial properties and several medical researchers have attested to its usefulness in treating certain viral infections. ...
According to the lawsuit, Dr. Marik was even forced to resign because he wasn't permitted to prescribe Ivermectin due to the FDA’s statements. Dr. Mary Bowden said that pharmacists had refused to fill Ivermectin prescriptions for her patients because it is not FDA approved for the treatment of COVID-19 and those off-label prescriptions in a manner categorically different from other off-label prescriptions.
The California 4th District Court of Appeal ruled against the San Diego Unified School District’s COVID-19 student vaccine requirement this week.
On Tuesday, the appellate court agreed with a lower court's ruling from last year that the school district does not have the authority to establish its own mandate.
A former Seattle municipal employee has filed suit against the city for anti-white racial discrimination. He alleges that city employees pushed critical race theory, said "white people are like the devil," and "continuously berated him about his race."
The California 4th District Court of Appeal ruled against the San Diego Unified School District’s COVID-19 student vaccine requirement this week.
Judge orders Kroger to pay workers unjustly fired for refusing to wear LGBT pride symbols
District Judge Lee Rodofsky of the Central Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas has ordered supermarket chain Kroger to pay two former employees unjustly fired for refusing to wear aprons with the LGBT Pride rainbow on them.
The plaintiffs in the case, Brenda Lawson and Trudy Rickerd, worked in the grocery’s Conway, Arkansas location.
Rodofsky, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump in July 2019, ordered the supermarket chain to pay $180,000 to the two plaintiffs and “provide reasonable accommodations to employees who have sincere religious objections to Kroger’s dress code.” Rodofsky also ordered Kroger to create a religious accommodation policy and new employee training.
The magistrate noted in his ruling that both Rickerd and Lawson “have sincerely held religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin and that they cannot support or promote it.”
« First « Previous Comments 193 - 232 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/ :