patrick.net

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.

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

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.

"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."

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.

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!

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.