patrick.net

https://josephsansone.substack.com/p/breaking-florida-lawsuit-seeks-injunction

Florida Lawsuit Seeks Injunction to Prohibit mRNA Nanoparticle Injections Because They Are Bioweapons

On December 1st, 2024, psychotherapist, Joseph Sansone, M.S., PhD filed a new case in Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County, Florida (2024-CA-001977) seeking an injunction to prohibit Governor DeSantis and Attorney General Ashley Moody from allowing the continued distribution of mRNA nanoparticle injections because they are biological and technological weapons of mass destruction.

The complaint also seeks declaratory judgements that the COVID 19 injections and all mRNA injections violate Weapons of Mass Destruction § 790.166, Fla. Stat. (2023); Fraud § 817.034 Fla Stat. (2023); and clearly violate Florida Medical Consent Law § 766.103 Fla Stat. (2023).

In Official Bulletins, the Florida Department of Health has previously called for a halt to the mRNA injections, advising that they are unsafe for humans and a threat to the human genome. Surgeon General Ladapo has publicly described the mRNA injections as the ‘Anti Christ’ of drugs.

Sansone says the mRNA nanoparticle injections deployed against 23 million Floridians cause multiple disorders and diseases, including death, “Heart attacks, strokes, cancer, autoimmune diseases, neurological disorders, are just a few of the devastating results of these weapons of mass destruction”.

On March 3rd of 2024, Dr. Sansone filed a writ of mandamus in the Florida Supreme Court seeking to compel Governor DeSantis to prohibit the mRNA nanoparticle injections and Attorney General Ashley Moody to confiscate the vials and conduct a forensic analysis. The case was transferred to the Circuit Court in Leon County where it was dismissed in April. Sansone filed an appeal in May that was eventually denied in October.

Dr. Sansone said, “It is time to mount up and ride to the sound of the guns. If you are not in this fight, get in it”. He continued, “It is time that Governor DeSantis listen to the Florida Department of Health and prohibit these mRNA nanoparticle injections in the state of Florida.” He went on to say, “Each time someone gets an mRNA nanoparticle injection, there is a danger of harming others through shedding of this technology. We are informed and we do not give our consent”

Sansone’s 80-page complaint includes an additional 50 plus pages of affidavits from legal, medical, and pharmaceutical industry experts asserting that the COVID 19/mRNA injections are bioweapons. Affidavits were provided by Francis Boyle, J.D., PhD; Karen Kingston; Ana Mihalcea, M.D., PhD; Rima Laibow, M.D.; Andrew Zywiec, M.D.; Marivic Villa, M.D., and Avery Brinkley, M.D.

The affidavits list a wide range of disorders and diseases caused by the COVID-19/mRNA injections. The affidavits include stunning statements that the mRNA injections are biological and technological weapons and cause a host of disorders.

Worth trying.

So, well supposedly Florida put in a law that for pedophiles they would be executed for their crime.

I think they passed it back in the summer. Well.....enough time has passed that some perps are bound to have been caught....but nothing but silence concerning this punishment.

I think the Florida prosecutors need to have this brought to their attention.

https://australiannationalreview.com/state-of-affairs/doctor-who-was-suspended-for-covid-19-vaccine-criticism-wins-lawsuit-against-medical-regulators/

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-sues-des-moines-register-top-pollster-brazen-election-interference-fraud-over-harris-poll

Trump sues Des Moines Register, top pollster for 'brazen election interference,' fraud over Harris poll

The Des Moines Register published pollster Ann Selzer's final poll showing Harris leading in Iowa by 3 points, despite Trump's eventual 13-point victory

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/university-of-california-covid-vaccine-lawsuit-moves-forward/

University of California COVID Vaccine Lawsuit Moves Forward, Despite Setback

A class action lawsuit against the University of California on behalf of employees affected by the university’s system-wide COVID-19 vaccine mandate will move forward, even though the California Supreme Court this week ruled against one of the plaintiffs’ key claims related to violations of the Nuremberg Code.

A class action lawsuit against the University of California (UC) on behalf of employees affected by the university’s system-wide COVID-19 vaccine mandate will move forward, despite a decision this week by the California Supreme Court that favored the defendant.

The Supreme Court declined to hear the plaintiffs’ request to compel a lower court to revisit its dismissal of one of their key legal claims — that when the university mandated COVID-19 vaccines it violated the Nuremberg Code and California law.

The Nuremberg Code, which is also codified in California law, prohibits experimenting on humans without their full and free informed consent.

The court’s decision applies only to that one claim, which is part of the larger class action lawsuit filed by a diverse group of employees who allege that UC’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate violated their rights to privacy and bodily autonomy — including their rights to make an informed decision to decline the shot.

According to the complaint, the university compounded those violations by withholding information the university had about the COVID-19 vaccines’ true risks and minimal benefits. The complaint noted that the UC system includes the largest hospital system in California and a massive research apparatus, where COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy studies took place.

“One of the interesting things about the case is that it addresses two sides of informed consent,” plaintiffs’ attorney Jeremy Friedman told The Defender.

It questions whether “consent” can be fully granted if someone’s job is under threat. But it also raises the question about what it means to be informed — because UC had access to a “treasure trove” of COVID-19 vaccine data that it never shared with students and faculty.

Some employees involved in the suit declined to take the shots and were terminated, denied hospital privileges or forcibly removed from campus. Others took the shots, unaware of the harm they could cause, and suffered serious vaccine injuries. Others took shots they didn’t want in order to keep their jobs.

All of them allege, on behalf of themselves and the class, that the mandate violated their rights. Those rights include the “jus cogens,” or compelling law claims based in international law, and also the constitutional- and state-guaranteed right to information and privacy in their medical decisions.

They also allege the university violated their state rights under the Fair Employment and Housing Act by making unnecessary medical inquiries about their vaccine status and by unlawfully retaliating against the employees who were terminated for refusing the shots.

Case that began with viral video could grow to include 200,000 plaintiffs

The case began when one of the plaintiffs, Dr. Christopher Rake, was escorted out of a UCLA Health medical center in 2021 after attempting to go to work without taking the shot.

In an X video of his expulsion that went viral, Rake explained what was happening and said he was willing to lose everything to stand up for the cause — to protect his and everyone’s rights to be fully informed of proposed medical interventions and to make their own decisions about whether to undergo treatment, according to the complaint.

The mandates obviously violated the Nuremberg Code's provision that no one may be forced to be part of a medical experiment.

https://slaynews.com/news/christian-teacher-wins-450k-settlement-ohio-school-district-fired-refusing-trans-pronouns/

Christian Teacher Wins $450K Settlement from Ohio School District After Being Fired for Refusing to Use Trans Pronouns

An Ohio school district has been ordered to pay $450,000 in compensation to a Christian teacher who was fired for refusing to use inaccurate pronouns for a “transgender” student.

26-year-old English teacher Vivian Geraghty lost her job when she said could not use the student’s new name and pronouns due to her Christian faith.

The former middle school teacher with Jackson Local Schools settled her lawsuit against the district for $450,000.

Geraghty said she was fired when she refused to address two students by names inconsistent with their real sex.

Patrick says

26-year-old English teacher Vivian Geraghty lost her job when she said could not use the student’s new name and pronouns due to her Christian faith.

Unfortunately, this makes the affair a "religious" issue when the matter is really an issue of compelled speech. What happens now when a devout Muslim refuses to have any female students in his class?

Patrick says

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-sues-des-moines-register-top-pollster-brazen-election-interference-fraud-over-harris-poll

Trump sues Des Moines Register, top pollster for 'brazen election interference,' fraud over Harris poll

The Des Moines Register published pollster Ann Selzer's final poll showing Harris leading in Iowa by 3 points, despite Trump's eventual 13-point victory

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/christmas-is-back-tuesday-december

Two days before the election, the uncannily accurate, “gold standard” Iowa pollster Ann Selzer published the poll that pulled the plug on her long and storied polling career. Her election-eve poll shockingly showed Trump clearly losing Iowa —which even in 2020 he’d easily won by +8 points. Literally within minutes of publication of Selzer’s poll, all the corporate media outlets laser focused on this one poll, and the talking heads chattered nonstop till the election about how Selzer’s poll proved Trump had already lost the election.

Specifically, mockingbird media’s talking heads instantaneously analyzed Selzer’s data and gushed that it evidenced a last-minute avalanche of support from America’s angry women that would inexorably clinch the election for cackling VP Kamala Harris.

Conservatives immediately smelled a rat. Selzer’s poll was an outlier. A big outlier. Like the other polls were in sitting in a Des Moines Starbucks and Selzer’s poll was trying to dock with the International Space Station. Corporate media’s instantaneous and homogenous narrative smacked of coordination. And get this: Selzer retired right after the election — a professional move she now calls “long-planned” but one which she’d never publicly mentioned even a single time.

As it turned out, Selzer’s poll was wrong. Not just a little wrong. She was way off, by double digits. Two weeks ago, she published a humiliating op-ed sort of apologizing for her ‘mistake.’ But not really apologizing. More like shrugging. These things happen sometimes. That’s science.

Selzer’s explanation answered nothing. If anything, it was insulting and infuriated her critics. Then last week, President Trump sued Selzer in Iowa. The suit also named Selzer’s employer, the far-left Des Moines Register, and the Register’s owner, Gannett News. Trump’s legal claims include consumer fraud and election interference, which the Democrats have taught us is literally a million times worse than whatever Benedict Arnold did.

Ibid:

Last year, far-left progressives giddily celebrated Douglass Mackey’s conviction. In 2021, Biden’s DOJ raided, arrested, and prosecuted the young man, who in 2016 had posted a sarcastic meme encouraging Hillary supporters to vote by text. His case is currently on appeal, but Mackey could be sentenced to up to ten years in federal prison for election interference via disinformation under a statute called “conspiracy against rights” (18 U.S.C. § 241).

Significantly, DOJ lawyers successfully argued that the effect of Mackey’s tweet didn’t matter. In other words, it was irrelevant whether anyone was actually stupid enough to try voting by text message. Mackey’s intent to ‘trick’ at least some voters was enough.

At the time, conservatives warned that Mackey’s conviction was a slippery slope to ever more “creative” claims of election interference, such as claims directed at campaign strategists, political activists, media outlets (like Gannett), and even pollsters (like Selzer).

In other words, Democrats laid down the election interference Slip-n-Slide and then poured vegetable oil all over it. Now they’re whining about being all greasy.

Before 2016, “election interference” only involved direct or physical vote manipulation. But thanks to Democrat linguistic terrorism, the term now lacks any solid definition. Trying to define election interference is like jello wrestling. Now, anybody can freely claim that election interference includes altogether new or “soft” forms of influence; if you can describe it, it can be interference.

Trump’s lawsuit leverages the Democrats’ spongy non-definition, where “election interference” can be anything that misleads or manipulates voters, including intentionally fraudulent polls. Trump’s lawyers have alleged that Selzer’s poll fraudulently influenced the election by creating a false narrative of inevitability for Kamala Harris.

In other words, Selzer’s fake poll was just as bad as, if not worse than, Mackey’s meme.

To be clear, the main legal thrust of Trump’s lawsuit is his claim under Iowa’s consumer protection law. But the definition of the alleged ‘fraud’ that occurred arises directly from the rhetorical Wild West of “election interference.”

Sooner or later, Democrats and their sold-out corporate media allies may learn to regret having re-defined “election interference.”

Tellingly, Trump’s spokesman Steven Cheung told reporters the President plans to focus on “blatantly false and dishonest reporting, which serves no public interest and only seeks to interfere in our elections on behalf of political partisans.”

See? It’s another Trump boomerang. He’s turned “election interference” around on them. Now, in hindsight, it seems obvious that the corporate media was always the most exposed to expansive claims of election interference. If poor Douglass Mackey committed a serious crime by reposting a meme, which the media roundly agreed, what should we make of a whole news organization that intentionally skews its coverage to support one candidate over the other?

Remember, winning these lawsuits isn’t even the most important goal. Now that Democrats and their mockingbird media allies have transformed nebulous “election interference” into a viable legal claim, discovery of the media is on the table. Discovery is a much more powerful threat than money. As the most recent example, the WaPo gave readers a little more information about why ABC settled its defamation case with Trump last week. Look:

When executives from Disney, ABC and their lawyers gathered last
Friday to discuss Trump's defamation suit, they faced a looming
deadline. The federal judge overseeing the case, Cecilia M. Altonaga, had
just rejected a new request to delay the case and demanded that Disney
hand over "all remaining documents" by Sunday.

In other words, Disney paid $15 million dollars to avoid giving Trump’s legal team ABC’s internal communications. Media companies have long enjoyed a generous freedom from discovery, since judges, following strict standards, routinely dismissed suits against media companies before the parties could take any discovery.

But it’s a new game now, and discovery is back on the menu.

Remember, sunlight is the best disinfectant. (Even better than injected bleach!) The threat posed to Ann Selzer and Gannett News is not the threat of money damages. It’s the terrifying possibility they may be forced to turn over their secret communications with the Harris campaign.

https://teachersforchoice.substack.com/p/en-banc-petition-filed-in-kane-and

En Banc Petition Filed in Kane & Keil Federal Court Cases for Unvaccinated Educators

What is an "En Banc" Petition, you ask?

Kane v. de Blasio was the first federal case filed for fired unvaccinated workers in NYC denied a religious exemption to vaccination. Those workers were all teachers and educators. Shortly after this case, Keil v. City of New York was filed for other educators denied religious exemptions, and now the two cases have been combined in the courts.

Recently after sitting on our appeal for over 20 months, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the cases for the majority of Kane plaintiffs and all of the Keil plaintiffs. (Two of the Kane plaintiffs had their petitions granted).

Now our attorneys have responded to this decision by calling for an “en banc” review of the case by the 2nd Circuit.

What does that mean?

Our case was just ruled on by three of the justices in the 2nd Circuit Court. Their ruling was so incredibly blind to the evidence that was presented in over 100 pages to the court, that we are now asking all of the judges in the 2nd Circuit to review the case and the decision (which is a total of thirteen judges).

That’s because the decision treated the majority of our plaintiffs who made the same factual allegations as those whose petitions were granted, as though we had not made the very same arguments, and no explanation was given as to why we should be treated differently. Our attorneys are asking an en banc court to grant the petitions from all our plaintiffs, resolve the multiple conflicts, and reverse the dismissals. ...

Because of this, our attorneys have asked every justice in the 2nd Circuit Court to review our petition. If this petition is not granted, it is highly likely we will be headed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

We have been fighting these cases for over 3 years now.