patrick.net

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/brief-struggles-wednesday-august

Newsweek ran a highly encouraging story yesterday headlined, “Conservative Journalist Gets $300,000 After 'Antifa' Assault at Protest.”

Andy Ngo, the terrific editor-at-large of The Post-Millenial, filed a civil lawsuit in 2020 after he was assaulted by three members of "Antifa.” The attack happened while Andy was covering a protest in downtown Portland, Oregon, in late May 2019, purportedly organized by a group called "Rose City Antifa.”

The lawsuit alleged that three Antifa members—Katherine Belyea, Madison Allen, and Joseph Evans—attacked Andy during the protest. Evans, who is totally not suffering from undiagnosed mental illness, has since legally changed his name to ‘Sammich Overkill Schott-Deputy.’ I did not make that up. If you can believe it, Schott-Deputy started the fracas by sucker-punching Andy. Ms. Allen then piled on by hitting Andy with a sign, and Ms. Belyea threw a milkshake at him.

The three hooligans failed to appear for a virtual court hearing yesterday, so Multnomah County Circuit Judge Chanpone Sinlapasai found the three youths civilly liable for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, ordering them to pay Andy a total of $300,000 in damages. Schott-Deputy’s lawyer, who did attend, tried to argue that his client was unable to appear due to being homeless, and at the time the lawsuit was originally served, Schott-Deputy was doing time for an unrelated prison sentence (so he couldn’t have been properly served).

But the judge overruled the lame excuses, citing the length of the trial and that the suit was initially filed back in 2020.

Progress! Keep the lawsuits coming.

Patrick says

“Conservative Journalist Gets $300,000 After 'Antifa' Assault at Protest.”

Nice, but not really a hit. Those three antifa clowns are flat broke. What needs to happen is that antifa higher-ups need to be sued. Otherwise, antifa just gets broke clowns to do the stuff antifa could be sued for.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/cruel-and-unusual-thursday-august

The Wall Street Journal ran another uplifting, counter-revolutionary lawfare story Tuesday, headlined “Activist Behind Supreme Court Affirmative Action Cases Is Now Suing Law Firms.” The sub-headline explained, “Ed Blum’s organization accuses firms offering fellowships for diverse candidates of racial discrimination against straight, white men.”

Ed Blum started the American Alliance for Equal Rights two years ago, advocating to end “affirmative-action.” Separately this summer, in a case involving Harvard College and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Supreme Court overturned nearly 50 years of race-conscious affirmative action at colleges and universities.

Fueled by that ruling, earlier this month the Alliance sued an Atlanta-based venture-capital firm fund that only supports Black small businesswomen. The lawsuit accused the VC firm of unlawful racial discrimination. On Tuesday, the Alliance filed two more lawsuits, this time against two prominent democrat-connected law firms, Perkins Coie and Morrison & Foerster, that only give fellowships to diversity candidates.

According to the story, the law firms’ fellowship positions are open only to applicants who are ‘students of color,’ ‘students who identify as LGBTQ+,’ or ‘students with disabilities,’ and other similar wacky categories that have nothing whatsoever to do with legal skill, and which include five-figure starting bonuses and salaries right out of law school starting at $200,000 and up.

Straight white men need not apply, regardless of law school grades, accomplishments, or capabilities. So.

Blum’s newest lawsuits accuse the two Big Law firms of violating Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which bars racial bias in private contracts.

You might wonder why a giant law firm would disregard the best candidates, and instead hire people based on skin color or atypical sexual preferences, who barely passed law school. Don’t the clients object? Don’t clients want the best lawyers working on their cases?

Not when your biggest customer is the government. When your biggest customer is the government, you hire the lawyers that the government wants. If the government doesn’t want smart lawyers, but only lawyers of a certain color or who have sex a certain way or with certain types of people, then you hire those lawyers.

Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman once famously said, “whenever you see a distortion in the market, look for the withered hand of government.”

Well. There it is. Right there.

Best wishes to Ed Blum for his terrific counter-revolutionary work, and we hope to see him (or his lawyers) arguing at the Supreme Court soon.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12459205/Jessica-Konen-landmark-victory-school-lawsuit.html

From the above:

California mom Jessica Konen settles landmark victory against Spreckels Union School district for $100,000 after she claims her daughter was 'socially transitioned'
Jessica Konen said her daughter Alicia, 11, was told by Buena Vista Middle School that she was upset because she didn't know who she 'truly was inside'
Single mom Konen accused teachers of encouraging her daughter to think she was a trans boy when she was at the school in 2019
READ MORE: California SUES school district that required teachers to notify parents if their child changes their gender identity or pronouns

https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2023/08/29/former-morgan-stanley-exec-sues-company-claiming-he-was-fired-because-he-was-white-n574610

A former executive with Morgan Stanley is suing the company for discrimination, alleging he was let go and replaced with a Black woman with “significantly less experience and qualifications” as the part of the financial giant’s efforts to meet its diversity, equity and inclusion goals.

Filed Tuesday in federal court in the Southern District of New York, the lawsuit alleges that Kevin Meyersburg was unfairly terminated this spring from his role as managing director and head of executive services after three years with Morgan Stanley. According to the lawsuit, the executive who relayed the news to Meyersburg that he was being terminated expressed “concern” about the experience level of his replacement and “could not explain to Meyersburg why the decision had been made.”…

“This is an example of DEI run amok,” Meyersburg’s attorney, Louis Pechman, told The Washington Post. “Race cannot be a factor in employment decisions, period. Full stop.”

https://notthebee.com/article/louisiana-man-wins-appeals-case-against-sheriffs-office-that-arrested-him-for-making-a-joke-about-covid

Louisiana man wins appeals case against sheriff's office that arrested him for making a joke about Covid...

On March 20, 2020, right when things began to be locked down across the country, Bailey posted this joke on his Facebook page:

SHARE SHARE SHARE ! ! ! !" Bailey wrote in an emoji-filled post. "JUST IN: RAPIDES PARISH SHERIFFS OFFICE HAVE ISSUED THE ORDER, IF DEPUTIES COME INTO CONTACT WITH ‘THE INFECTED' SHOOT ON SIGHT….Lord have mercy on us all. #Covid9teen #weneedyoubradpitt.

This was a clear joke and reference to the movie World War Z starring Brad Pitt.

But the Sheriff's Office in Rapides did NOT find this joke funny.

Just a few hours after this post, a literal SWAT team showed up at his door and placed him under arrest for making a terroristic threat!

The post had no threat in it. It wasn't an instruction anyone would take seriously. It wasn't even really making fun of the Sheriff's department. It was just a silly "Everyone is scared of Covid!" joke.

Without a warrant, according to court documents, they arrested Bailey and locked him up with a $1,200 bond.

Over a Facebook joke.

Fortunately for Bailey, the DA decided not to prosecute him, surely realizing he had no case and that Warren was just making a joke.

But by that time, Warren's face had been plastered all over the news, he had been destroyed in the press, and called a threat. The Sheriff's Office, according to Bailey, really messed up his life.

Bailey decided he was going to go on the offensive, taking the case to court himself by suing the department.

In September 2020, Bailey filed a lawsuit alleging Detective Randell Iles and Sheriff Mark Wood violated his First and Fourth amendment rights.

The first court ruled on the side of the cops, saying that the post could be legitimately perceived as a terrorist threat.

But justice was still coming. In the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, a judge has finally ruled in Bailey's favor, overturning the lower court's ruling.

In Friday's ruling, the appellate judges declared that Bailey's Facebook post was not a threat and did not incite violence. The reference to Pitt's fictional character was a giveaway that it was not serious, the court said.

"The post did not direct any person or group to take any unlawful action immediately or in the near future," the judges wrote. " … at worst, his post was a joke in poor taste, but it cannot be read as intentionally directed to incitement."

The sheriff is now being ruled to have violated Warren's 1st Amendment right to free speech and 4th Amendment right by arresting him with no probable cause.

I'm a back-the-blue kind of guy, and it honestly helps the police's credibility when jokers like this officer are punished for pushing the envelope.

"It's a great victory for Waylon and for the Constitution," Field said. "It clearly lays out that police have to respect First Amendment rights online, and that they can't wantonly arrest people who make jokes about them."

Honestly, I am shocked that WaPo is writing this pro-First Amendment piece. But I am glad to see it.

Bailey isn't sure his life will return to normal, but said he hopes he will no longer fear his hometown's sheriff's office. He's still seeking money for damages and attorney's fees and an apology from the sheriff'soffice.

In my non-legal opinion, he deserves every cent from that department and a public apology from everyone involved.

Hopefully, this puts a fear into other vindictive sheriffs and police departments.

X/Elon to sue Anti-Defamation League for ... Defamation of X/Twitter

https://patrick.net/post/1380049/2023-09-05-elon-goes-after-the-adl-suing-for

https://slaynews.com/news/judge-rules-nyc-teachers-refused-covid-shots-jobs-back-full-backpay/

Teachers in New York City, who were fired for refusing to comply with Covid vaccine mandates, must be given their jobs back and awarded full backpay, a judge has ruled.

The case was taken to the State Supreme Court by 10 employees of the New York City Education Department.

State Supreme Court Judge Ralph Porzio ruled that the decision to fire the teachers and deny them religious exemptions was unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious.

The group included school principals, teachers, and other educators.

They sued the city after they were fired over the draconian mandates.

In his 22-page opinion, the judge blasted the city for forcing teachers to get vaccinated against their will.

Lawsuits are good, but hangings would be better.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/back-pay-saturday-september-9-2023

The New York Times ran a delicious story yesterday headlined, “Appeals Court Rules White House Overstepped 1st Amendment on Social Media.” “Overstepped” is a bit understated.

The story referred to the case of Missouri v. Biden. In what the Times goofily called “a victory for conservatives,” rather than for all Americans, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court injunction banning the White House, CDC, and FBI from influencing social media companies to remove so-called “disinformation.”

In the delightful 75-page order, the judges opined that the White House and its Surgeon General had "coerced the platforms to make their moderation decisions by way of intimidating messages and threats of adverse consequences" and "significantly encouraged the platforms' decisions by commandeering their decision-making processes."

The appellate court also found that the FBI had illegally coerced the companies, which had taken down 50% of the online material that the bureau's agents flagged as problematic. "Given the record before us, we cannot say that the F.B.I's messages were plainly threatening in tone or manner,” the judges wrote. But "we do find the F.B.I's requests came with the backing of clear authority over the platforms."

It’s not an exaggeration to say this case is probably the most important civil rights case in our lifetimes. This ruling is terrific news. To give you some inside baseball about how good it was, I’ll explain some injunction law.

There are four main elements that a party must prove to get an injunction. Three of them are tough. One of the tough ones is that the party must show a “substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits.” In simpler words, that means the party seeking the injunction has to convince the court it will probably win the whole case.

So when a court grants an injunction, it must also find that, at this point, it looks like the party is probably going to win. It’s like an early trial, a preview of the court’s final decision, a trial-before-the-trial. The party that wins the injunction then has a huge, permanent advantage in the case.

So the fact that in Missouri v. Biden, the trial court and now the appellate court have both agreed on the injunction, things are looking very bad for the government and its censorship machine. Which explains why the New York Times finally reported on the case.

According to the story, the White House “is considering” appealing to the Supreme Court, and I hope they do. But I would be very surprised if that happens, because we all know the Supreme Court is probably dying to weigh in on this issue.

Major progress.

https://notthebee.com/article/elon-musks-x-joins-babylon-bee-lawsuit-against-california-

AB 587 requires large social media companies like X Corp. to (1) post terms of service dictated by the government and include terms about how content is moderated on their platforms (the "Terms of Service Requirement") and (2) submit, on a semi-annual basis, to the California Attorney General a "terms of service report" that includes, among other things, (a) "a detailed description of content moderation practices used by the social media company for that platform"; (b) information about whether, and if so how, the social media company defines and moderates (i) hate speech or racism, (ii) extremism or radicalization, (iii) disinformation or misinformation, (iv) harassment, and (v) foreign political interference; as well as (c) information and statistics about actions taken by the social media company to moderate these categories of content (the "Terms of Service Report").

AB 587 violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 2, of the California Constitution because it compels companies like X Corp. to engage in speech against their will, impermissibly interferes with the constitutionally-protected editorial judgments of companies such as X Corp., has both the purpose and likely effect of pressuring companies such as X Corp. to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally-protected speech that the State deems undesirable or harmful, and places an unjustified and undue burden on social media companies such as X Corp.

https://annecantstandit.substack.com/p/a-heads-up-especially-for-new-yorkers

The wee problem with anti Constitutional lawfare is the exploitation of the expense and delay of the legal process, itself, not to mention the hazards of arbitrary or politically motivated outcomes.

The estimates are that the average overturning of anti Constitutional laws, mandates, actions etc. is 18 months, which gives the KommieKunt subversives at least that amount of time or longer to coerce, intimidate, terrorize, damage and kill the citizens. Also, there are seldom genuine punitive measures against the perpetrators once their anti Constitutional measures are overturned. Too many monsters die comfortably at home of old age instead of in the gallows or prison.

Constitution delayed is Constitution denied.

Ceffer says

The estimates are that the average overturning of anti Constitutional laws, mandates, actions etc. is 18 months,

Which is why they're all coming out now in time for the Election.

https://sfstandard.com/2023/09/11/he-fought-ucsf-over-big-medical-bills-and-won-it-took-a-lawsuit/

In 2017, Christian Ard began to scrutinize the bills for his daughter’s regular psychotherapy appointments. He noticed that besides the roughly $400 charge for the therapy, she was also being charged over $500 for each patient visit.

Even though insurance was covering two-thirds of the cost, something didn’t seem right.

He called his daughter’s nurse practitioner, but she had no idea what the $500 charges were for. The insurance company said it meant his daughter’s sessions had run over 50 minutes—only they hadn’t. UCSF billing said the charges were for documentation but couldn’t tell him what was being documented.

“If you don’t know, why should I pay for it?” Ard recalled asking. The response? “Good health care is priceless.”

“That’s when I said, ‘OK, I’m going to go and file in court,’” he told The Standard.

That decision sent Ard on a yearslong quest to defeat UCSF Health, San Francisco’s leading medical center, in court.

Ard was not alone in his frustrations. Many patients have complained about the high cost of health care at UCSF and the University of California medical system’s opaque billing procedures.

But Ard was persistent and knew his way around small claims court. He fought the bills, and he won.

His path to victory offers a window into the long and, at times, Kafkaesque struggle that can await patients who battle what they believe to be unjustified or inexplicably large medical bills. It’s a microcosm of a larger problem plaguing American health care, experts say.

This is why I wrote this:

https://patrick.net/post/1303673/2017-03-07-require-short-clear-written-presentation-of-all-non-emergency-medical-costs-before-treatment

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/chilling-effects-tuesday-september

Finally, in more terrific legal news, yesterday the LA Times ran a story headlined, “Controversial law punishing doctors who spread COVID misinformation on track to be undone.” Gosh. That was fast!




A few days ago, California bill SB815 was sneakily amended to include a provision to repeal AB2098, the state’s currently-enjoined doctor censorship law. Everything you need to know is in the LA Times’s description of that law as “a well-intentioned poorly worded and ultimately doomed effort to curb the most flagrant cases of COVID-related falsehoods by people wielding medical licenses.”

Haha, “people wielding medical licenses.” Just say ‘doctors,’ morons.

The LA Times reported there are four separate pending lawsuits attacking AB 2098. The state clearly doesn't like its chances of winning, especially since one group of plaintiffs has already obtained a preliminary injunction against the unconstitutional law. Judge William Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled that the law’s “unclear phrasing and structure” could have a “chilling effect,” and even called the law “grammatically incoherent.”

Last year when the law was passed, the censorship law was critical and essential to save the lives of patients too stupid to make up their own minds. But now, all of a sudden, woke California legislators don’t think the original bill was even necessary. Much ado about nothing, and so forth. As they say, success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.

Those criminals who passed this unconstitutional state law must be held accountable.

Patrick says

Haha, “people wielding medical licenses.” Just say ‘doctors,’ morons.

Half the people who still read the LA Times have a 6 month certificate in "Life Coach Therapy" from "The Holistic School of Palo Alto" and charge $75/hr for their "Expertise"

For most people lawsuits are not the answer but just a major legal bill.

Why? Because most lawsuits lack enough evidence or proof.

And even if you have proof most attorney don’t want to take the case and risk losing.

Karma is the only answer in most cases and karma seems to never strike in most cases.

Sorry Patrick but I disagree with you.

You've never had your landlord storm out of court when they were forced to repay $300 of fake paint charges because they failed to provide receipts.

NuttBoxer says

You've never had your landlord storm out of court when they were forced to repay $300 of fake paint charges because they failed to provide receipts.

How does one "storm out of court?" Such behavior guarantees a contempt charge.

She very loudly stated they were going to appeal, and left in an obvious huff. I won't bother speculating on what should cause a contempt charge, I'll just tell you that in small claim California courts, your assertion is wrong.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/09/louisiana-man-wins-lawsuit-against-town-that-targeted/

A man in Louisiana has just won a lawsuit against the town of Grand Isle.

Ross Brunet flies anti-Biden flags on the back of his truck. He has been ticketed multiple times and the town even went so far as to pass an ordinance in an effort to stop him.

He won the lawsuit on free speech grounds. This article doesn’t specify what the flags say, but one could easily assume it says something like ‘F’ Joe Biden. ...

The report goes on to say that Brunet is receiving $40,000 in legal fees, and that the town is reversing the ordinance. That is good news. ...

Why was this even an issue in the first place? When Trump was president, celebrities and members of the media said vulgar things about the president every day. It was inescapable. Why the sudden outrage now?

Robber Baron Elite Scum says

For most people lawsuits are not the answer but just a major legal bill.

The legal system is designed to inflict exorbitant taxation on conflicts and as such is a racket. Can't solve your own conflict or voluntarily conform to laws? The lawyers and courts will gladly drag it out, and resolve your conflict by impoverishing you. The point at which you are rendered moneyless and powerless is the preferred goal, after which the courts can do anything they want to you with impunity and contempt.

The system also is designed to always favor the moneyed, who can afford the process and wear their opponents down by attrition and wrapping their opponents up in the legal tar babies of expense, extortion and delay. This is the basis of lawfare. So, the guys with the printing press money and the Intel storefronts have plenty of printing press bux for lawfare.

If a bank knows that you are involved in a lawsuit of almost any description, they will not extend you credit, because they know the results are unpredictable and that you will be consumed with the expense of the lawsuit, likely using the credit they extend.

When the king had to resolve disputes, he would take as much money and power from the disputants as possible to himself. With relatively poor and powerless disputants, one would be stripped, imprisoned or killed, the other merely stripped and released with the king all the more powerful and wealthy.

A wealthy disputant could pay a premium and prevail by default. When the king got sick of doing this shit, the job was assigned to literate priest class who could read, write and act as recorders with pomp and circumstance, who took over the racket. Tax collectors with militias often were reconfigured to act as the 'judges and lawyers' and the traditions have stuck. Lawyers represent the legal guild first, you last, even though you pay them outlandish fees for minuscule progresses. All legal problems are 'complex' because the wending, willful complexities are theater for the agog and increase the delay and expense of the process. The best you can say for the process is it keeps the parties distracted with the winning and losing process fictions and they don't disproportionately murder and dismember each other over trivial money disputes, but are drained to exhaustion by the legal vampires instead.

In our system, you are considered literally a dead sea chattels, and you are only represented as a life through the hiring of a lawyer who 'represents' you to the bar. The question always is, how much 'justice' can you afford?

https://twitter.com/ezralevant/status/1375459075916509187

https://www.dailywire.com/news/a-black-mountain-climber-ruined-a-mans-career-with-false-accusation-of-racism-lawsuit-states

A Black Mountain Climber Ruined A Man’s Career With False Accusation Of ‘Racism,’ Lawsuit States

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/benedict-a-thursday-october-5-2023

💉 Outstanding Orlando-based freedom law firm Liberty Counsel issued a press release yesterday headlined, “DOD Pays Liberty Counsel $1.8 Million for COVID Litigation” According to a settlement agreement filed in the Middle District of Florida yesterday, the DOD must pay Liberty Counsel $1.8 million within 21 days to cover attorney’s fees and costs after two years of litigation over vaccine mandates.

After Liberty Counsel successfully obtained multiple restraining orders and injunctions, including a class-wide injunction, on January 10th, 2023, the DOD was finally forced to abandon its grotesque medical mandate and rescind its August 24, 2021 and November 30, 2021 memoranda.

It took a year and a half to beat the mandates, which seemed like forever but is not a long time in legal terms.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The military COVID shot mandate is dead. Our heroic service members [—some of the finest people who love God and love America—] can no longer be forced to take this experimental jab that conflicts with their religious convictions.”

Kudos to Liberty Counsel and the steely resolve of its founder, Mat Staver.

https://lc.org/newsroom/details/100423-dod-pays-liberty-counsel-dollar18-million-for-covid-litigation-1

As a result of Liberty Counsel’s class action lawsuits in Navy SEAL 1 v. Austin and Colonel Financial Management Officer, et al. v. Austin, and after Liberty Counsel obtained multiple restraining orders and injunctions, including a class-wide injunction, the DOD was forced to abandon its mandate and rescind the August 24, 2021 and November 30, 2021 memoranda on January 10, 2023. This settlement agreement comes after thousands of service members have been denied religious accommodation requests (RAR) from the unlawful federal COVID shot mandate. Some service members have been punished, demoted, or discharged as a result. The many restraining orders and the class-wide injunction Liberty Counsel won stopped the DOD’s unlawful shot mandate.

The DOD is now required to pay Liberty Counsel within 21 days.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The military COVID shot mandate is dead. Our heroic service members can no longer be forced to take this experimental jab that conflicts with their religious convictions. Through our daily work with service members in every branch, we have had the privilege of knowing some of the finest people who love God and love America. These heroes should not have been mistreated by our own government. At the same time, we have come to realize that many of the high-ranking members of leadership, the Pentagon, and the Biden administration need to be replaced. Collectively, they dishonored the brave men and women who defend our freedom. We stand ready to defend our defenders of freedom if any religious discrimination occurs in the future.”

Patrick says

https://www.dailywire.com/news/a-black-mountain-climber-ruined-a-mans-career-with-false-accusation-of-racism-lawsuit-states

A Black Mountain Climber Ruined A Man’s Career With False Accusation Of ‘Racism,’ Lawsuit States

What to do, what to do. Personally, I avoid troublemakers of all kinds. I also know the FBI stats so...

https://billricejr.substack.com/p/my-trial-lawyer-buddies-wont-like

I’ve now written several articles pointing out the obvious. Namely, that all important organizations that are supposed to discover the truth are completely captured.

One of the most-important of these professions is Plaintiffs’ Trial Lawyer firms. These are attorneys and law firms that are supposed to exist to represent people who suffered grave harms from malfeasance or nefarious (and illegal) acts.

First questions: Where are these fearless, justice-seeking lawyers today? What are they doing with their lives and careers?

We know what they are NOT doing: They are not suing any person or company whose activities directly or indirectly injured or killed hundreds of millions of possible plaintiffs who are pleading for justice. ...

Potential lawsuits might expose (and give some compensation or “justice”) to tens of millions of people who suffered harm from lockdowns, iatrogenic deaths and injuries, vaccine deaths and injuries and/or vaccine mandates that resulted in people losing their jobs and incomes.

So why aren’t these lawsuits being filed? Why won’t 99 percent of these firms even consider representing a potential plaintiff class that’s so massive in size?

Nobody wants to leave the safety of the herd
Or: club membership bestows benefits

My answer is that plaintiff trial lawyers are part of a “club” that’s now completely captured. It’s more important to these attorneys to remain in this privileged and protected club than it is to do the job lawyers were created to do. ...

What these lawyers in their $5,000 suits are really admitting is that they do fear repercussions from the most powerful entities in the world.

They are either scared as hell of getting on the wrong side of the “Powers that Be” … or they are admitting they’d prefer to remain a member in good standing of the club that rules the world. ...

It’s possible legions of members of Plaintiffs Trial Bar are waiting for one brave lawyer in their group who does say, “Damn the torpedoes” and starts suing away.

Of course, this scenario would entail a handful of judges who would allow good cases to go to trial … and this possibility is being blocked as well.

It turns out that the judges are lawyers too. This makes one think everyone who could make a difference …. won’t … because they’re all members of the same captured club.

Pretty much all lawyers got the free PPP money, That money was a loan and one of the conditions was that you had to abide by the pandemic dictates. That and yes they are scared shitless of the powers that be.

https://www.westernstandard.news/news/ontario-man-files-356-million-lawsuit-against-pfizer-over-sons-vaccine-death/49455

Patrick says

https://www.westernstandard.news/news/ontario-man-files-356-million-lawsuit-against-pfizer-over-sons-vaccine-death/49455

I wonder what his chances are.

HeadSet says

I wonder what his chances are.

0.

The government is in collusion with the criminals. It's pretty obvious, the government itself pushed the vaccines, it's not like that vaccine companies just lies, and the government was like "whatever - do what you like, SEEMS like a good idea.."

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1715820838564593745.html

Breaking: You can now sue the mRNA COVID vaccine manufacturers for damages and the FDA is required to take the COVID vaccines off the market. Why? Adulteration. The plasmid bioactive contaminant sequences were NOT pointed out to the regulatory authorities. It's considered adulteration. ...

The FDA is now at a crossroads. Either they admit that they knew about the plasma contamination, and failed to disclose that to the public and to the outside committees, or they can claim that they didn’t know about it in which case Pfizer is liable. But we have the Pfizer documents that were given to the FDA so we know what the FDA got. And I seriously doubt there’s any disclosure of SV40 contamination. That means we have an adulterated vaccine and the FDA has to remove it from the market until the adulteration is fixed. If the FDA doesn’t do that, they should face criminal prosecution for endangering the public, and not following the law. ...

Here's the Michigan story for those who asked showing when there is contamination, there is no immunity. It makes sense. Otherwise, they can add arsenic into the vaccines and not be liable. ...

https://wwmt.com/news/local/michigan-judge-denies-drug-manufacturers-immunity-in-case-of-contaminated-covid-19-medication

DETROIT, Mich.— A Michigan judge has ruled for the first time that a drug manufacturer is not protected by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act in a case where a man suffered two strokes and a leg amputation after receiving a COVID-19 medication contaminated with glass particles.

The PREP Act was declared by the U.S. Department of health and Human Services for emergency use, and shields manufacturers, administrators and distributors of vaccines from liability claims of loss caused by a drug.

The case, filed by Ven Johnson Law on behalf of Dan Nowacki, focuses on how Nowacki suffered a stroke after receiving Remdesivir that was contaminated with glass particles.

The drug was administered intravenously at St. Joseph Mercy Chelsea Hospital and is designed to combat COVID-19 symptoms.

Two lots containing 55,000 vials of the drug were recalled after it was found they were contaminated with glass particles.

In November 2021, Nowacki was admitted to St. Joseph Mercy Hospital in Chelsea with COVID-19.

During his stay, he was administered five doses of Remdesivir and at least two of those doses belonged to the contaminated lot, the lawsuit states.

Days later, he suffered a massive stroke and other serious complications.

Nowacki developed hematomas and swelling on his face, thighs and arms.

According to the lawsuit, around December 16, 2021, Nowacki suffered another stroke, which left him permanently bedridden and in need of 24/7 round-the-clock care.

On July 12, 2023 and August 2, 2023, Judge Carol Kuhnke heard oral arguments from both Ven Johnson Law and the defendants as to whether the case should continue to trial.

The defendants in the lawsuit was filed in Washtenaw County Circuit Court and listed Gilead Sciences, Inc., the drug manufacturer and St. Joseph Mercy Chelsea Hospital, Inc. as defendants.

The judge ruled that Congress did not plan to extend the PREP Act immunity to a drug that substantially deviated from FDA approval and included glass particles.

The defendants now must stand trial.

Here is a list of 90 lawyers that you can contact if you want to sue the vaccine manufacturers:

https://airtable.com/appGIUGnttjzscdJF/shrAqtpTOTkoOgrbx/tblfVuObLpclbtF0W

The SV40 promoter is found in all the vials and it was in the gene sequence that was provided to the regulators. There is no mistake. The problem was that neither drug company ever pointed it out to the regulators. It's an unapproved contaminant that doesn't meet the standards set. So the regulators are off the hook. But if the regulators don't take action, then they dig themselves into a very deep hole. The law requires the FDA to stop the vaccine.
Robert Malone @RWMaloneMD just messaged me: “Yes I think that this DNA adulteration issue could be the wedge we have been looking for. Use of a plasmid with SV40 sequences as the template for manufacturing the pseudo-mRNA is, at a minimum, reckless and I can see no logical justification”
It does appear that Biden and most all of the US lawmakers are supporting the drug companies. That’s what they’re paid to do.

Why do I say that? The adulteration has been known since April 2023 and nobody has called for an investigation. Not even after Health Canada confirmed it. They didn’t even ask for an investigation!! ...

A writ of mandamus can be used to force the FDA to follow the law.

Also, a court injunction could halt both mRNA vaccines in the US immediately. But this would require a showing of "irreparable harm" (among other criteria).

If we can prove that the plasmid contamination is causing "irreparable harm" (i.e., integrating into your DNA), the vaccine is TOAST.

So can you guess what we are working on now?

Hey, I know that hospital! I used to live in Chelsea, MI.

Kirsch posted the same thing on Twitter. I'm guessing if FDA does pull it no one will be told.

https://twitter.com/stkirsch/status/1715820838564593745

https://chrisbray.substack.com/p/picking-up-some-dropped-threads

I noted a few weeks ago that a lawyer for the Los Angeles Unified School District had faced an obviously hostile panel of judges from the 9th Circuit while defending that district’s morally and scientifically insane Covid-19 “vaccine” mandate for its employees.

Soon after, the school board voted to drop the mandate, with board president Jackie Goldberg nonetheless shrieking like the dimwitted lunatic she is that the mandate had been entirely proper and wonderfully effective.




Yes, this is an image from September 26, 2023 ...

The LAUSD ended hundreds of careers with a shameful policy that attacked the principle of informed consent and the medical autonomy of its employees, then refused reasonable demands to change the policy, then dragged litigants through a long and expensive cycle of legal conflict — and then, facing not just obvious defeat but the prospect of making case law over the topic of their horrible behavior, they dropped the policy and told the court to consider the whole argument moot. Whoops, can’t make case law, now.

This is why it’s so hard to sue governments into behaving reasonably. If they’re winning, they play out the game. If they’re losing, they flip the board and scatter the pieces.

https://twitter.com/MdBreathe/status/1717328883945509057

Patrick says

https://twitter.com/MdBreathe/status/1717328883945509057

Now all they have to do is punish the schools and universities for harm done to students.

Patrick says

with board president Jackie Goldberg nonetheless shrieking like the dimwitted lunatic she is

Every single time!!!

Patrick says

https://twitter.com/MdBreathe/status/1717328883945509057

I wonder if that will apply to all those nurses the governor refused to rehire.

https://youtu.be/2zA8YXrXl1U?si=uX7gNUl209NeQKZG

Companies PANIC as LAWSUITS take on DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion)!