patrick.net

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/principles-saturday-june-7-2024-c

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 Then, following a contentious appellate hearing, having enjoyed its first go around, the LAUSD again rescinded its vaccine requirement and again asked for the case to be dismissed as moot.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 Twice LAUSD has withdrawn its policy only after facing some litigation risk.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.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/12875545/covid-vaccine-anti-vaxxer-nhs-scotland/

AN NHS medic who refused to get a Covid jab has won a discrimination case after her boss labelled her an "anti-vaxxer".

Senior ultrasound specialist Gail Lauder caused tension with her colleagues who "reacted negatively" to her stance especially when she discussed it with patients, an employment tribunal heard.

The experienced sonographer said she had declined to be vaccinated because she had suffered from allergic reactions in the past and was "very cautious" about the drugs and medicines she used.

As a result of her allergies, she also said she could not wear the medical grade masks her hospital required staff to wear during the pandemic.

Her position - and objection to being told to keep quiet about it - led to bosses branding her an "anti-vaxxer", a label that the tribunal found to be "unfavourable treatment".

https://www.2ndsmartestguyintheworld.com/p/update-4-what-happens-when-an-elderly

Update 4: four of my mother’s “vaccinated” friends have died in the last 6 months:

Friend 1 (Pfizer shots 1 & 2, plus booster): turbo cancer

Friend 2 (Pfizer shots 1 & 2, plus 2 boosters): aplastic anemia

Friend 3 (Pfizer shots 1 & 2, unsure of how many boosters): blood clots and stroke

Friend 4 (Pfizer shots 1 & 2, unsure of how many boosters): turbo cancer

My mother has been very upset about the loss of her dear friends, but she appreciates the real cause of these murders, and often says, “I am so proud of myself for having the intuition to reject these “vaccines.””

UPDATE 3: Now that my mother has finally been rescued from NYC, her deranged sociopathic ex-gerontologist may now be fully exposed.

Dr. Michael Perskin’s online reviews are rather poor, though still far too high for the kind of iatrocide services he provides his elderly patients; to wit:




A negative five-star review for Dr. Mini Mengele Perskin would be far too generous based on my interactions with him.

But what the above pair of most recent reviews fail to mention is that the not-so-good doctor pushes deadly medicines on his patients, not limited to the slow kill bioweapon COVID-19 “vaccines.” ...

My mother will never go back to her primary care physician after he attempted to force her to take the DEATHVAX™ without informed consent. This sociopathic gerontologist accused yours truly of “elder abuse” because I would not coerce my mother into taking this slow kill bioweapon. ...

The DOCTOR was visibly agitated. He instantly barked at both G and her SON to hike their masks up all the way over their noses or else he would call security on them and have both them escorted out of HOSPITAL X.

Mother and SON obliged, adjusting their respective masks.

The doctor at that point contemptibly looking from mother back to SON. He then turned to G and admonishingly ordered her, “G, you have to get the Covid vaccine. You have to do it now. It’s for your own protection and for the protection of others.”

Without looking at her SON, G held the DOCTOR’S stern look and replied to him calmly yet sternly, “I do not want the vaccine.”

The DOCTOR turned to the SON and hissed at him, “You told her not to get it!”

Before the SON, fighting back the urge to stomp this Mini Mengele’s skull in, could answer, his mother sharply and forcefully interjected, “My son did not tell me anything. I’m not taking this vaccine. I don’t want it.”

The DOCTOR, taken aback by the rejection of his medical advice turned back on the SON, and blurted out, “You’re guilty! You are guilty of Elder Abuse!”

The SON edged forward in chair, eyes fixated on this evil little man, and he coolly asked, “Excuse me? What did you just say?”

The DOCTOR broke eye contact with the SON, and shifted in his chair. He glanced up at the nurse whom by that point had became extremely uncomfortable at the tense and unprofessional interactions.

The DOCTOR’S tone suddenly shifted, and he then gently and politely asked G to lower her mask. He looked her face over carefully, and commented in mock concern that she looked unusually pale, at which point he glanced back at the SON while asking G with his face still turned away from her, “Are you feeling okay G?”

The DOCTOR then started inspecting G’s arms and legs, clearly looking for something evidence of said “Elder Abuse”.

G replied without missing a beat that she felt perfectly fine. At which point the DOCTOR glanced back at the SON who then chimed in, “I hope every parent gets the kind of “Elder Abuse” that my mom receives and they all look as youthful and healthy as she does for her age.”

The DOCTOR started blinking uncomfortably at that.

The SON added, “You didn’t even once bother to offer my mom any kind of informed consent for this experimental gene therapy you tried to push on her.”

The DOCTOR started ranting, “the vaccine is safe and effective”, etc.

The SON calmly asked him if he has any research studies to that effect. The DOCTOR said it was approved by the FDA. The SON corrected him that these injections were in fact EUA and as such never had any FDA approval.

There was a silent beat.

And then the SON asked the DOCTOR if he was “vaccinated” to which he replied in the affirmative. The SON then added, “Great, then you have nothing to worry about. Oh, and by the way, do you happen to know what the virion size of Covid is and how that pertains to these surgical masks we’re all wearing now?”

At that the DOCTOR rose out of his chair and scurried out mumbling, nurse in tow.

When the DOCTOR paused at the opened door the SON nonchalantly added, “I hope you realize there will at some point be Nuremberg 2.0 trials for this.”

The DOCTOR jumped back and barked, “The nurses down the hall will draw your—” And before he finished his sentence the door was slammed shut. ...




... The following day lawyer extraordinaire and all around good guy Todd Callender was retained.

Todd was equally as outraged as the SON.

The following letter was dispatched to this DOCTOR and HOSPITAL X.







... They want you dead.

Do NOT comply.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/behave-tuesday-june-18-2024-c-and

Bloomberg Law ran an historic story yesterday headlined, “Kansas Sues Pfizer Over Covid-19 Vaccine’s Safety, Efficacy.” Yesterday, Kansas sued covid vaccine giant Pfizer for dangerous misrepresentations. Safe and effective! The new Kansas suit follows Pfizer’s Texas lawsuit headache, filed by its Attorney General Ken Paxton in December (it remains pending). ...

Kansas’ complaint interestingly alleges Pfizer kept its own internal adverse events database, completely separate from the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), containing cases of adverse events reported spontaneously to Pfizer, cases reported by health authorities, and cases published in the medical literature. The logical inference is not only that Pfizer had evidence of more problems than anyone else, but it did not share those problems with federal agencies, or even with VAERS. ...

Cases brought by states, unlike cases brought by ordinary citizens, are better positioned to tackle corporate giants like Pfizer. Citizen suits are handicapped by mismatches in funding, political clout, judicial skepticism, and sheer numbers of lawyers, paralegals, and other legal resources easily available to pharma giants like Pfizer.

But States don’t share those limitations. Setting aside whether it’s fair or not, judges take state lawsuits more seriously than lawsuits filed by citizens or citizen-led activist groups. Now Pfizer faces two lawsuits from states alleging it lied about vaccine safety and efficacy. More suits may be coming, and probably are.

At some point, one of these lawsuits is going to grip, and then the sparks will become a Disneyesque fireworks display. Patience, grasshoppers. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but when they really catch something they grind it into dust. It’s coming.

https://slaynews.com/news/kansas-evidence-pfizer-conceal-mislead-side-effects-covid-shots/

The State of Kansas outlines several specific allegations in its lawsuit:

1. Pfizer misled the public that it had a ‘safe and effective’ COVID-19 vaccine.

2. Pfizer said its COVID-19 vaccine was safe even though it knew its COVID-19 vaccine was connected to serious adverse events, including myocarditis and pericarditis, failed pregnancies, and deaths. Pfizer concealed this critical safety information from the public.

3. Pfizer said its COVID-19 vaccine was effective even though it knew its COVID-19 vaccine waned over time and did not protect against COVID-19 variants. Pfizer concealed this critical effectiveness information from the public.

4. Pfizer said its COVID-19 vaccine would prevent transmission of COVID-19 even though it knew it never studied the effect of its vaccine on transmission of COVID-19.

5. To keep the public from learning the truth, Pfizer worked to censor speech on social media that questioned Pfizer’s claims about its COVID-19 vaccine.

6. Pfizer’s misrepresentations of a ‘safe and effective’ vaccine resulted in record company revenue of approximately $75 billion from COVID-19 vaccine sales in just two years.

7. Pfizer’s actions and statements relating to its COVID-19 vaccine violated previous consent judgments with the State of Kansas.

8. Pfizer’s actions and statements relating to its COVID-19 vaccine violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, K.S.A. 50-623 et seq., regardless of whether any individual consumer ultimately received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

9. Pfizer must be held accountable for falsely representing the benefits of its COVID-19 vaccine while concealing and suppressing the truth about its vaccine’s safety risks, waning effectiveness, and inability to prevent transmission.

Meanwhile, four other states have now followed Kansas’s lead.

The five states now suing Pfizer over the Covid mRNA injections are:

Kansas
Texas
Mississippi
Louisiana
Utah

https://x.com/JasonBlairNTD/status/1802765077637935284

America First Legal suing Northwestern Law School over policy that they will hire as many "Non-White Candidates" as possible.

The Law School is loudly and proudly violating Civil Rights and Employment Laws here.


Also suing on behalf of an Emmy-award winning CBS employee fired to make room for a POC

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/divided-house-wednesday-july-3-2024

Chatanooga ABC affiliate Channel 9 News ran a story yesterday headlined, “Tennessee woman fired for refusing employer's COVID-19 vaccine mandate wins almost $700K.” A federal jury awarded $687,000 to a woman who was fired for refusing to take the covid shots mandated by her employer, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee. Tanja Benton invoked a religious exemption but was fired anyway, despite never having contact with patients, and having worked from home.

A Blue Cross HR flunky told Tanja that "there are no exceptions" to the jab mandate and then fired her. But the jury found she had a sincere religious belief precluding the shots. The jury, get this, awarded Tanja $177,240 in back pay, $10,000 in compensatory damages, and a whopping $500,000 in punitive damages.

That massive punitive damages award means the jury was pissed. More lawsuits are pending against Blue Cross. They should consider settling generously.

And even better, three U.S. circuits have also hammered employers over jab mandates over the last month. ...

There are more cases! It is fair to say the legal dam has burst, and the tide has turned. We are in a new phase now. Courts and juries are starting to show some serious irritation with employers who were stingy with religious exemptions. Large jury verdicts are like catnip to lawyers, and as the verdicts roll in, more and more lawyers will eagerly file the lawsuits.

Back in 2021, I warned employers their stupid jab policies were going to result in a tsunami of lawsuits that would make the tobacco lawsuit bonanza look like a lone, scrawny, tobacco bush. Or tree, I can’t remember. You get the idea.

I read my employer the riot act as far as revealing vaccine status, let alone clot shots, and even I told my boss it was totally illegal, and the organization was putting itself on the hook for MASSIVE class action suits against it, and that I would sue everyone from the HR flunky threatening me up to the CEO. 8 hours before the deadline, the company backed down.

Fuck them, and everyone who looks like them, as well as the horse they rode in on.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/07/the_ninth_circuit_shoots_down_covid_vaccine.html

The COVID shot was put on trial in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and coming from California the result might surprise you. Three of four judges agree it was never a “traditional vaccine” and therefore could not legally be mandated. ...

In its final ruling, the court decided “At this stage, we must accept Plaintiffs’ allegations that the vaccine does not prevent the spread of COVID-19 as true… And, because of this, Jacobson does not apply. LAUSD cannot get around this standard by stating that Plaintiffs’ allegations are wrong. Nor can LAUSD do so by providing facts that do not contradict Plaintiffs’ allegations... But even if the materials offered by LAUSD are subject to judicial notice, they do not support rejecting Plaintiffs’ allegations. 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.” ...

According to America’s Frontline Doctors this is a bigger deal than one might think because “Liability protection under U.S. law is granted only to valid vaccines. The CDC and pharmaceutical companies were fully aware of this critical distinction when they changed the definition of “vaccine” in 2021 to include mRNA shots.”

Could immunity from liability of Big Pharma be challenged on the basis of this decision by the Ninth Circuit? Personally, I hope so.

Nice! Since it was never even a real vaccine, Pfizer can be sued into oblivion.

Patrick says

Since it was never even a real vaccine, Pfizer can be sued into oblivion.

Pfizer is used to $billion fines. This judgement needs to be used to sue ANYONE who mandated the vaxx.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/the-execrable-games-tuesday-july

💉💉 More good jab news. The slow-motion collapse of the jab mandate industry continues. NBC Philadelphia ran a local-interest story yesterday headlined, “Former ADA wins appeal after being fired for refusing COVID vaccination due to religious beliefs.” The Third Circuit overruled the lower federal district court, which now allows former Assistant District Attorney Rachel Spivack’s case to head to trial.

Rachel, who is Jewish, was fired by the federal government —which never fires anybody including failed Secret Service Directors. But they sure fired Rachel, for refusing to take the jab on religious grounds. The District Attorney’s office made Rachel wait seven months before denying her request for a religious exemption, and then they fired her.

Even better, Rachel’s attorneys now get the right to take discovery, and so forth. I sense a settlement coming.

More like this, please. Progress!

Patrick says

More like this, please. Progress!

Better if they were not for religious reasons. The jab is a bad choice for scientific reasons.

HeadSet says

Patrick says

More like this, please. Progress!

Better if they were not for religious reasons. The jab is a bad choice for scientific reasons.

@HeadSet True, but Christina Hildebrant, who runs religious exemption workshops around here, says that only religious reasons will work, and that to even mention science instantly gives the establishment the motive and the justification for denying the exemption.

The reason is that "science" is completely owned by Pfizer, and the entire establishment has staked its credibility on Pfizer's repeated obvious lies.

If the establishment admits that the "science" is murderously wrong, they then give up their own credibility and power, and they will NEVER do that, no matter who dies from their corruption and incompetence.

So the only way that any exemption can get approved is for purely religious reasons. They have not staked their credibility and power on religion, so they don't have the existential angst about religious exemptions they way they do about scientific exemptions.

They see that once their genocidal corruption of "science" for cash is fully exposed, they have opened themselves up to extremely well-justified hangings.

https://www.covidlawcast.com/p/brave-citizens-holding-employers

The 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, and 11th Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals have issued 10 appellate decisions since May supporting religious and moral beliefs for employees who didn’t want the covid shot and/or testing.

This run of wins has roots in last year’s Groff v DeJoy decision out of the Supreme Court. That case rejected the "de minimis" standard for religious accommodations. The Court held that employers must show substantial costs to deny accommodation.

Here are some of the recent winning appeals briefly described:

2024-05-07 Does v Univ of CO Regents, 10th Circuit. ...

Where are the lawsuits to block Kamala from being on the ballot in states where the deadline has passed?

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/toughen-up-thursday-august-1-2024

In February 2022, Attorney General Paxton sued Meta (Facebook) for capturing the biometric data (tagged photos and facial recognition) of millions of Texans without first getting informed consent. Paxton argued Meta’s data collection violated Texas's "Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier" Act and the state’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

This week, to settle the lawsuit, Meta agreed to pay Texas a staggering $1.4 billion over the next five years—just for collecting facial recognition data. Here is a link to the order approving the settlement. On top of the huge fine, Meta must also stop collecting Texans’ facial recognition data without their prior consent, and must delete all the data it has already collected. Boom.

Consider the old saying, “death by a $1.4 billion cuts.” One wonders whether AG Paxton would have focused so closely on Meta, absent Facebook’s corrupt pandemic censorship and its 2020 election interference. As they say, you have to pay to play.

https://www.covidlawcast.com/p/brave-citizens-holding-employers

The 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, and 11th Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals have issued 10 appellate decisions since May supporting religious and moral beliefs for employees who didn’t want the covid shot and/or testing.

This run of wins has roots in last year’s Groff v DeJoy decision out of the Supreme Court. That case rejected the "de minimis" standard for religious accommodations. The Court held that employers must show substantial costs to deny accommodation.

Here are some of the recent winning appeals briefly described:

2024-05-07 Does v Univ of CO Regents, 10th Circuit.

Government can't discriminate based on religious beliefs. It can't judge legitimacy of religious beliefs. It can’t “troll” through a person’s beliefs. And, policies can't favor secular over religious exemptions.

2024-05-24 Ringhofer v Mayo Clinic, 8th Circuit.

Employers can't judge if objection is truly religious. Religious beliefs don't need to be logical or consistent. A testing objection was upheld. Science can be part of belief—It may be part of judging how something is bad for you.

2024-06-07 Health Freedom Def. Fund, Inc., v. Carvalho, 9th Circuit.

Reinstated challenges to school vaccine mandate. Questioned legitimacy of mandating ineffective vaccine. Allowed attorneys to argue that the shots are not vaccines.

2024-06-12 Lucky v. Landmark Medical of MI, 6th Circuit.

Government can't second-guess religious interpretations. Rejected calling religious beliefs merely "personal." Personal beliefs count.

2024-06-18 Bacon v. Woodward, 9th Circuit.

Reinstated firefighters' challenge to vaccine mandate. Mandate not generally applicable due to exemptions. Mutual aid agreement allowed unvaccinated firefighters to fill in when needed so no rationale to discriminate.

2024-07-18 Beuca v. Washington State University, 9th Circuit.

Reversed dismissal of religious accommodation claim. Cited Groff's new "substantial costs" standard required before an employee may be fired.

2024-07-23 Davis v. Orange County, 11th Circuit.

Firefighter Battalion Chief refused to reprimand objecting firefighters. Vacated dismissal of retaliation claim. Cited Muldrow's new adverse action standard. The harm need not be significant to be compensable.

2024-07-29 Spivack v. Krasner, 3rd Circuit.

Remanded for trial on Free Exercise claim by an Orthodox Jew. Jury to resolve factual disputes on religious hostility by Krasner.

2024-07-29 Passarella v. Aspirus, 7th Circuit.

Religious accommodations can have religious linked with secular reasoning. Remanded for trial on accommodation claim.

Recent Finalized cases:

2024-07-22 EEOC v. Hank's Furniture

$110,000 settlement for manager denied religious exemption. Company enjoined from religious discrimination.

2024-06-28 Benton trial, TN

Jury awarded $687,240 to employee denied religious exemption.

Navy Seals

Started with a favorable 2022-02-28 Navy Seals 5th Circuit opinion. 35 Navy service members sued over vaccine mandate. Navy granted medical but not religious exemptions. Court ordered policy changes and $1.5M in attorney fees. Did not award damages or back pay. Did fix service records.

Ongoing cases:

Rake v. University of California Regents, 220,000 employees. Past motions to dismiss and in discovery. We get access to the medical records. Using California’s Constitution and laws against the Regents.

Some Military Cases From: Three Lawsuits Filed: Bassen | Botello | Harkins (militarybackpay.com)

Bassen v. United States (Active-Duty). Class action for about 8,500 active-duty service members involuntarily discharged due to unvaccinated status and other active-duty service members forced into early retirement or constructively discharged due being unvaccinated.

Botello v. United States (National Guard/Reserves). Class-action seeking backpay and other remedies for 70,000-100,000 members of the Air and Army National Guard, and for reserve members of all services, dropped from active-duty orders or active status, denied pay or benefits, or prohibited from participating in drills, training, other duties due to being unvaccinated.

Harkins v. United States (Active-Duty and Reserve). Class action for active-duty and reserve Coast Guard members involuntarily discharged due to their unvaccinated status, as well as any other Coast Guard members who were forced into early retirement or were constructively discharged due to being unvaccinated.

Others:

1000s of individual employment claims settled. Settlement numbers are going up as the appellate wins come in.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/impeachment-insurance-wednesday-august

On Monday, in a decision that will delight secular C&C readers, HR Dive ran a great legal news story headlined, “7th Circuit: Religious objections to COVID-19 vaccine may include secular reasons.” The sub-headline explained, “Healthcare employees who were denied a vaccination exemption based on their Christian beliefs and concerns about the vaccine’s safety can sue the employer for violating Title VII.”

In Passarella and Dottenwhy v. Aspirus, Inc., reversing a decision by the lower federal court, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to allow two former employees of Wisconsin nonprofit healthcare system Aspirus to proceed with their lawsuit. The workers claim they were unlawfully denied a religious exemption because their reasons for seeking the exemption mainly were related to their concerns about the vaccine’s safety and potentially harmful effects.

“The fact that an accommodation request also invokes or, as here, even turns upon secular considerations, does not negate its religious nature,” the majority wrote, adding that “a religious objection to a workplace requirement may incorporate both religious and secular reasons.”

HR Dive —a news site aimed at human resources managers— suggested that employers “should think hard” before rejecting exemption requests. The effects ripple far beyond covid jabs.

For instance, in the same article, HR Dive suggested HR managers consider a recent case from Michigan, where Trinity Health Grand Rapids agreed to pay $50,000 to settle EEOC allegations it had improperly rejected an employee’s religious request for exemption from its flu shot policy.

Flu shots . Progress!

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/impeachment-insurance-wednesday-august

Yesterday, Variety ran an exciting story headlined, “Elon Musk’s X Sues Advertisers Accused of an ‘Illegal’ Boycott: ‘Now It Is War’.” Space billionaire and the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, declared war on a monopolistic cartel of advertisers that boycotted Twitter/X:

We tried peace for 2 years, now it is war

Here’s the link to Twitter’s newest lawsuit, filed yesterday. According to the lawsuit, a shady Belgian ‘industry trade group’ called the World Federation of Advertisers formed another ‘media watchdog’ group called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM). The WEF calls the two groups “a flagship project.”

Twitter alleges they launched a conspiracy — joined by dozens of advertisers — to “collectively withhold billions of dollars in advertising revenue” from Twitter/X. The conspiracy caused Twitter’s 2023 advertising revenue to dive -52%, to $1.13 billion, and revenues are still falling.

That’s a lot of damages.

The lawsuit followed hearings last month in the House Judiciary Committee, where Jim Jordan questioned a GARM representative and exposed internal emails revealing awkward internal discussions like, “we blocked Daily Wire, why not block Fox News?”, and one GARM advertiser member begging to please be allowed to go back on Twitter because it was an “important tool to reach our audience.”

Another email from a top GARM executive said that he “hated their ideology and bulls**t,” referring to Fox, Daily Wire, and Breitbart.

On June 10th, the House Judiciary Committee published its interim report, titled, “GARM’s Harm: How the World’s Biggest Brands Seek to Control Online Speech.” The Committee’s findings fueled Musk’s new lawsuit. Yesterday, video platform Rumble announced it was also joining the lawsuit (link includes video explainer):

Rumble @rumblevideo • 20h
BREAKING: Rumble has joined @X to sue a cartel of advertisers and ad
agencies who conspired to block ad revenue from going to certain
platforms and content creators.
GARM was a conspiracy to perpetrate an advertiser boycott of Rumble and
others, and that's illegal.

Other platforms will surely follow. The Judiciary Committee report is a dream for lawyers, a gift-wrapped windfall, having already assembled the evidence it would otherwise have taken years of discovery to obtain.

So never say Congressional hearings never go anywhere.

The other noteworthy item about this story is how much is happening behind the scenes, or even right in front of the scenes, but we don’t see it, because more urgent news is constantly coming at us through an anti-riot fire hose.*

(* anti-riot fire hoses were never deployed in Minnesota, having been accidentally buried under Tim Walz’s large-print copy of the Communist Manifesto).

As Elon said, echoing Andrew Breitbart, it’s war.

https://notthebee.com/article/the-biden-harris-administration-put-tulsi-gabbard-on-a-terror-watchlist-and-now-she-will-be-taking-legal-action-against-them

Tulsi Gabbard will be taking legal action against the Biden/Harris admin over putting her on a terrorist watch list:

‘My own government, my president, my commander-in-chief is targeting me as a potential domestic terrorist, the closest word that comes to mind is a complete sense of betrayal.'

‘After serving over 21 years and continuing to serve in our nation's military, my own government has labeled and is targeting me directly now as a domestic terrorist.'

‘They're using people like the air marshals as weapons and pawns to target their political opponents.'

‘Of course, there's no explanation given, which is why we are taking legal recourse.'

‘Obviously, I've been very outspoken about the dangers of the Biden-Harris administration to our democracy and to our freedom and to our national security. This is what happens as a result.'

Shouldn't matter where you land on the political spectrum, a former congresswoman and veteran being put on a terrorist watch list simply for speaking out against the current administration should enrage you. It should enrage you because it's not only a waste of your tax payer money, but because it is what some of the [worst] governments in history do and that doesn't represent America.

The weaponization of government against outspoken political opponents is things you see in governments such as Russia and Iran not America

If you are a Democrat thinking "that's what she gets for betraying us," please remember the Pendulum always swings back the other way. Eventually a non Democrat will take power and the precedent has now been set.

Americans deserve better.

https://ground.news/article/conservative-professor-reaches-multimillion-dollar-settlement-after-free-speech-lawsuit

Conservative professor reaches multimillion-dollar settlement after free speech lawsuit

A California community college district settled with a conservative professor, agreeing to pay $2.4 million after years of legal disputes.
Matthew Garrett claimed the Kern Community College District retaliated against him for questioning fund misuse in social justice projects.
Under the settlement, Garrett will receive $154,520 immediately and monthly payments for 20 years, and agreed to resign.

Garrett's attorney's argued that school officials retaliated after the two questioned whether grant money was being improperly used to fund woke social justice initiatives.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/kamala-chameleon-friday-august-30

On Wednesday, CNN ran a terrific story headlined, “Sarah Palin granted new trial in defamation lawsuit against the New York Times.” On Wednesday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals revived Palin’s case, which was oddly dismissed in 2022 during jury deliberations. The judge wasn’t taking any chances.

Palin and her lawyers sued the Times for defamation, over its false implication that Sarah had been responsible for the 2011 shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords (D-Az.) and 18 other people (six people were killed, including a federal judge). After Palin had gone through the whole case and her lawyers put on the entire trial, and after the jury went back to deliberate, only then did federal Judge Jed Rakoff rule that “no reasonable jury would find that the newspaper and editor acted with actual malice in publishing the article.”

While they were still deliberating, many of the jurors got push alerts on their phones about the judge’s decision, as joyful corporate media rushed to announce the happy news. Unsurprisingly, the jury, having been told how to vote, returned a ‘not guilty’ verdict for the Times.

On Wednesday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the case and ordered a new trial The decision is a fascinating read, carefully describing the media’s disgusting sausage-making and editorial character assassination. This is the second time the appellate court overruled Judge Rakoff and reinstated Sarah’s case.

The bungled dismissal and the poisoning of the jury were only two of the many problems the Court of Appeals noticed:

Despite the district court's Rule 50 dismissal, the jury was
allowed to reach a verdict, and it found the Times and Bennet "not
liable." Unfortunately, several major issues at trial -specifically, the
erroneous exclusion of evidence, an inaccurate jury instruction, a
legally erroneous response to a mid-deliberation jury question, and
jurors learning during deliberations of the district court's Rule 50
dismissal ruling -impugn the reliability of that verdict.

Not only that, but the Court of Appeals essentially found Sarah had proven her defamation case at the sky-high clear and convincing standard. “After reviewing the record and making all reasonable inferences in Palin’s favor,” the Court noted, “we conclude that there exists sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.”

In legal terms, that’s what we call a “burn” on the trial judge.

The New York Times would be well advised to settle at this point. They say justice delayed is justice denied, but Sarah Palin may finally be about to get paid for the Times’ horrible reporting.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf

So the Supreme Court justly ruled that "Affirmative Action" is unconstitutional, because it is obviously racism in itself, judging people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character or any other personal qualities.

And as a result, college admissions have become much fairer to those students who were explicitly discriminated against solely because of their race, namely whites and Asians.

https://dnyuz.com/2024/08/30/at-2-elite-colleges-shifts-in-racial-enrollment-after-affirmative-action-ban/

At Amherst College, the share of Black students decreased sharply — by eight percentage points — for this year’s entering class, according to data released on Thursday. ...

Amherst’s data showed that the percentage of white students enrolling rose sharply, while the percentage of Asian American students rose slightly.

Merit should be everything in admissions, and race should be nothing.

Universities are working hard to continue their racist policies by other means, and this means that other lawsuits need to be filed as well.

https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/proud-to-be-suing-hospitals-and-doctors

Proud to Be Suing Hospitals and Doctors That Inject Hep B Vaccines Into Newborns Without Parental Consent

Hospitals and doctors across the nation: You are on notice

ICAN is supporting an initiative that is long overdue: suing doctors and hospitals that inject newborns with a hepatitis B vaccine without parental consent.

The hepatitis B vaccine is a case study in agency capture. The target for this product was sex workers and intravenous drug users, and the rare pregnant mother who was hepatitis B positive. The problem was that CDC could not get the sex workers and intravenous drug users to take this product. The story would have ended there if pharma didn’t stand to earn billions through a wider mandate of this product.

https://icandecide.org/article/stop-hep-b-vaccination-without-consent/

https://www.sirillp.com/hep-b-vaccines-administered-without-consent/

If your newborn received a hep B vaccine at the hospital without your consent, you may be entitled to compensation. Don’t let the hospital get away with doing this to other parents in the future. Contact us today.

Simply fill out the form on this page and one of our attorneys will provide a free evaluation of your potential claim.

Patrick says

So the Supreme Court justly ruled that "Affirmative Action" is unconstitutional, because it is obviously racism in itself, judging people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character or any other personal qualities.

Great things are coming. This Court is pure fire. We just need the Presidency back and to make sure we have well funded NGOs to sue, sue, sue if a successor Democrat regime tries to reimpose or restore DEI.

https://www.covidlawcast.com/p/pfizer-is-tripping-over-its-arguments

Pfizer is tripping over its arguments

These lawsuits are revelatory.

Pfizer is contradicting itself between the Brook Jackson case and the Kansas case.

1. Contract Conditions:

· In Kansas case: Pfizer claims the contract had multiple "specific terms for Pfizer's performance" and various contractual conditions.

· In Jackson case: Pfizer claimed the contract had only "a single condition of payment: Pfizer's delivery of an FDA authorized or approved vaccine for COVID-19."

2. Statement of Work Requirements:

· In Kansas case: Pfizer argues there were many contractual obligations in the Statement of Work.

· In Jackson case: Pfizer specifically rejected the "allegation that the [Statement of Work] somehow tied payment to Pfizer's compliance with every particular of the clinical protocol or related FDA regulations" as "mistaken and refuted by the [Statement of Work] itself."

3. Clinical Trials:

· In Kansas case: Pfizer suggests clinical trials were part of contractual requirements.

· In Jackson case: Pfizer stated that the Statement of Work "states explicitly that Pfizer's 'clinical trials' are 'out-of-scope,' 'not related' to the agreement, and that the relevant studies were undertaken at Pfizer's expense 'without the use of Government funding.'"

4. Contract Clarity:

· In Kansas case: Pfizer argues for complex contractual obligations.

· In Jackson case: Pfizer claimed "the agreement is crystal clear" that delivery was the only contract condition.

Kansas could raise the doctrine of judicial estoppel meaning a party cannot just change a position to gain advantage when you asserted a different position in a prior case. The test is simple:

Clear contradiction in positions.

To gain tactical advantages in different courts.

Holding Pfizer accountable for its position would protect judicial integrity.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25245990-kansas-motion-for-remand-1
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25245991-kansas-v-pfizer-notice-of-removal-1-1
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25245992-pfizer-opposition-to-motion-for-remand-kansas

That's not justice. Hangings are required.

https://x.com/newstart_2024/status/1849703063423943000

https://abc7news.com/post/bart-workers-fired-due-covid-vaccine-mandate-get-1-million-each-federal-jury-decides/15464182/

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- A federal jury has sided with fired BART workers who sued the agency claiming they lost their jobs over a COVID vaccine mandate.

There are six of them total in the lawsuit and each will receive more than $1 million.

The employees claimed religious exemptions to the vaccine mandate but say they were not accommodated by the transit agency, and subsequently lost their job.

BART did initially grant vaccine exemptions, but the plaintiffs argued they weren't accommodated. An accommodation could have meant that they were able to work from home or get tested regularly for COVID. They argued none of that happened and they lost their jobs.

In total, BART must now pay a combined $7.8 million to all six former employees.

BART is a transit agency that is already between $350 and $400 million in the red, but BART's board of directors did vote eight to one for the vaccine mandate in 2021.

The money is not sufficient justice. The members of BART's board of directors who forced the mandates must be hanged.

Patrick says

"There are six of them total in the lawsuit and each will receive more
than $1 million. The employees claimed religious exemptions to the vaccine mandate
but say they were not accommodated by the transit agency, and subsequently lost
their job."

Question: What do we need a religious exemption? A simple NO is not good
enough for the courts?

https://nypost.com/2024/10/31/us-news/trump-sues-cbs-news-for-10b-alleging-deceptive-doctoring-of-harris-60-minutes-interview/

Trump sues CBS News for $10B alleging ‘deceptive doctoring’ of Harris’ ‘60 Minutes’ interview

Former President Trump is suing CBS News for $10 billion in damages, stating the network practiced “deceptive conduct” for the purpose of election interference in its interview with Vice President Kamala Harris.

Lol, it's brilliant just for the free publicity. And maybe he can win the suit and bankrupt them.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/apostrophe-gate-friday-november-1

Yesterday, Axios reported a highly amusing story headlined, “Trump sues CBS News for $10 billion over Harris interview.” Yesterday, President Hilariously, Trump’s lawyers sued CBS in a conservative district in Texas, for deceptively editing Harris’ interview answers to make her look smarter and more well-spoken than she really is, which amounted … wait for it … to election interference.

Here is a link to the Complaint, which if you have any interest in legal matters is very entertaining: -20241031 Trump’s Ten Billion Dollar Halloween Lawsuit vs. CBS.-

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/87shfd7v0tb3gs3pljhsm/20241031-Trump-v.-CBS-Dist.N.D.Tex._2-24-cv-00236.pdf?dl=0&noscript=1&rlkey=buqtyadvdozd72rba5hvefvzg

The claim is based on Texas’s consumer protection statute, the same one Texas AG Ken Paxton is using to sue the vaccine manufacturers. Comically, Trump’s lawsuit alleged that CBS “deceptively edited Kamala’s answer in the October 5 Version to create the appearance that she was articulate and decisive, when in reality her full answer to the question was a jumbled ‘word salad’ that further exposes her and harms her electoral chances.”

Let the games begin!

https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/supreme-court-rules-hennepin-county-absentee-ballot-board-must-comply-with-state-law-in-balancing-board/

Supreme Court rules Hennepin County Absentee Ballot Board must comply with state law in choosing election judges by Nov. 1

A petition in the Minnesota Supreme Court accusing Hennepin County of failing to comply with election law by not appointing election judges from a chosen list for its Absentee Ballot Board was granted on Tuesday.

The petition was filed by the Minnesota Voters Alliance, the Republican Party of Minnesota, Karen Attia, Marlene Stoick and Richard Sutter on Oct. 15 against Hennepin County, Ginny Gelms — the elections official for Hennepin County — and Daniel Rogan, the County Auditor for Hennepin County.

The petitioners accused the county and county officials of violating Minnesota law under allegations they didn’t “appoint any election judges from the Republican Party of Minnesota’s dedicated list… of candidate election judges as required by law.”

In a decision from the Minnesota Supreme Court on Tuesday, Chief Justice Natalie E. Hudson said the governing body of the Hennepin County Absentee Ballot Board “must appoint election judges from the Republican Part List and may appoint Republican-affiliated election judges not appearing on that list only after it has exhausted the candidates on the list.” The county has until Nov. 1 to comply.

True!

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/nov/8/lisa-domski-fired-refusing-get-covid-19-vaccine-aw/

DETROIT — A jury awarded more than $12 million Friday to a woman who lost her job at a Michigan insurance company after declining to get a COVID-19 vaccination.

Much of the award - $10 million - is for punitive damages against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, according to the verdict form.

Lisa Domski, who worked at Blue Cross for more than 30 years, said she was a victim of religious discrimination. The company in 2021 did not grant an exemption from its vaccine policy, despite her insistence that it clashed with her Catholic beliefs.

The worm has turned, globohomo is realizing that they need to

1) run for the hills, or
2) cruise the international waters away from extradition on their super-yachts, or
3) hunker down in their refurbished vintage Titan missile silo bunkers.

Fuck them and their crotch fruit, and everyone who looks like them, and the private jets they rode in on to the latest globohomo conference to suck Al Gore's ED cock.

https://reclaimthenet.org/rumble-sues-california-over-censorship-law-that-impacts-satire

Rumble Sues California Over Censorship Law That Impacts Satire

A new legal challenge, spearheaded by Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys, has thrust the state of California into the spotlight once again over allegations of infringing on free speech rights. This federal lawsuit, lodged on behalf of video-sharing platform Rumble, argues that two new California statutes unconstitutionally restrict users’ ability to share political content online.

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

https://docs.reclaimthenet.org/rumble-v-bonta.pdf

Under these controversial laws, specifically AB 2655, platforms like Rumble are coerced into policing and removing content that the state deems harmful. These regulations have been criticized for compelling platforms to censor speech, thereby becoming unwilling agents of government censorship. According to ADF Senior Counsel Phil Sechler, in a press release sent to Reclaim The Net, “California’s war against political speech is censorship, plain and simple. We can’t trust the government to decide what is true in our online political debates.” He emphasized the importance of platforms like Rumble, which resist governmental pressures to curtail free expression.

The complaint details the operational challenges: “The law forces Rumble to undertake the impossible task of training its team to recognize and then remove and label content based on inherently vague and subjective terms on which even pollsters and government officials cannot agree, such as what content may be ‘likely to harm’ electoral prospects or may likely undermine confidence in an election.”

Further, Rumble contends that AB 2655 oversteps by altering and compelling the speech of private entities, thus infringing upon their rights to free speech. It argues that neither the Constitution nor Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act allows California to “alter and compel Rumble’s speech while also mandating that it censor its users’ speech. As such, this Court should enjoin AB 2655 and declare it unlawful.”