patrick.net

One thing that people may not know is that federal tort claims applies if you are a victim of the federal government.

AD says

One thing that people may not know is that federal tort claims applies if you are a victim of the federal government.

So, if my car is hit by an uninsured illegal, sue the federal government?

zzyzzx says

So, if my car is hit by an uninsured illegal, sue the federal government?

I like how you think!

Pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca has admitted that its widely used Covid vaccine, branded Covishield, can cause rare side effects including blood clots and low platelet count.

Covishield was developed by the British-Swedish company in collaboration with Oxford University, UK, and produced by the Serum Institute of India. It was widely administered in over 150 countries, including Britain and India.

A class action lawsuit filed in the UK claimed that the vaccine led to deaths and severe injuries and sought damages up to £100m for about 50 victims.

One of the complainants alleged that the vaccine caused him a permanent brain injury after he developed a blood clot, preventing him from working.

While AstraZeneca has contested these claims, it admitted for the first time in one of the court documents that the vaccine can “in very rare cases, cause TTS”, or Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome, which is characterised by blood clots and a low blood platelet count in humans.

“It is admitted that the AZ vaccine can, in very rare cases, cause TTS. The causal mechanism is not known,” the company said in the court documents in February, The Telegraph reported.

https://padailypost.com/2024/05/07/jury-sides-with-students-in-blackface-lawsuit/

A jury has reached a $1 million verdict against a private high school in Mountain View that expelled two students after a photo of them wearing acne masks was interpreted as blackface.

The students, Holden Hughes and Aaron Hartley, will get $500,000 each from St. Francis High School after they were swept up in a racial controversy amid the Black Lives Matter movement.

Hughes and Hartley will also get reimbursed for tuition, which was estimated to be $70,000 total for their three years attending the school at 1885 Miramonte Ave.

Their attorney, Krista Baughman, said the ruling extends protections from a California Supreme Court decision that mandated fair procedure rights for students at private universities.

This case extends these protections to private high schools, including religious institutions, ensuring students receive notice of charges and a fair opportunity to respond before getting disciplined, Baughman said. ...

The picture of the boys, taken at a sleepover in August 2017, went viral during the Black Lives Matter movement and sparked a parent-led protest in June 2020.

Within 24 hours, administrators said the boys could either leave or be expelled ahead of their senior year, the suit said.

The blackface was actually a green face mask that darkened, the suit said.

Parent Alicia Labana was named in the original lawsuit for allegedly posting the photo on Facebook while organizing a march at the school. ...

Because of the controversy, Hughes said his family put up security cameras around their home and asked Los Altos police to do extra patrols.

Hartley said he had to move three hours away to finish high school online without getting harassed or ridiculed.

The boys said the controversy jeopardized their future college and career prospects. They lost friends, sleep and the final year of their high school experience, according to the lawsuit.

That pice of shit Karen, named Alicia in this case, caused immense harm with her Karen-ness.

https://thecanadianindependent.substack.com/p/quebec-superior-court-judge-grants

Éloïse Boies, pictured above, is a YouTuber with the channel 'Élo Wants to Know.' She has been granted authorization to proceed with a class-action lawsuit against YouTube. The lawsuit alleges that the platform has been censoring content related to the pandemic, vaccines, and the Covid-19 virus that it disagrees with, citing it as medical misinformation.

The plaintiff, Éloïse Boies, who is legally represented by William Desrochers, alleges that YouTube, owned by Google LLC, censored three of her videos. YouTube cited a violation of its platform policy, stating that Boies spread "incorrect medical information contradicting that of local health authorities or the World Health Organization (WHO) regarding COVID-19." ...

The plaintiff primarily argues that YouTube's content control related to the COVID-19 pandemic is an unlawful an intentional infringement on freedom of expression, which is protected by the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

Google contends that it hasn't breached the Charter since it's not obliged to offer a space for sharing videos regardless of their content. Additionally, it asserts that its platform is private and can be managed according to its own rules and preferences.

Superior Court Judge Lukasz Granosik mentions in his judgement that "Freedom of expression does not only mean freedom of speech, but also freedom of publication and freedom of creation. Granosik then quotes from the Supreme Court of Canada saying, "it is difficult to imagine a guaranteed freedom which is more important than freedom of expression in a democratic society."

Judge Granosik concluded after reviewing all the facts in the case that, "If Google manages and controls the content found on the YouTube platform and therefore takes actions in this direction, it cannot immediately deny all responsibility. If it carries out censorship by preventing certain people from posting videos and prevents other people from viewing these same videos, it thus hinders the free circulation of ideas and exposes itself to having to defend its ways of doing things."

IBM/RedHat being sued for DIE racial employment discrimination against a White Man.

James O'Keefe has a zoom call of CEO Krishna demanding executives push more Minorities at least 1 percent to qualify for bonuses, tying bonuses to discriminatory hiring practicies

https://x.com/America1stLegal/status/1788307463281733837

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/05/justice-texas-cop-fired-attending-j6-protests-receives/

Booger says

" https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/05/justice-texas-cop-fired-attending-j6-protests-receives/ "

From the link:

"JUSTICE: Texas Cop Fired For Attending J6 Protests Receives $400,000 Settlement For Wrongful Termination... According to The Forth Worth Star-Telegram, former Bexar County Lt. Roxanne Mathai was a "passionate supporter" of Donald Trump and had traveled to Washington to attend the ‘Stop The Steal’ protests.

She uploaded photos of the event to social media as protesters entered the Capitol building, although she did not enter the building herself. After returning to San Antonio, Sheriff Javier Salazar launched an investigation into her conduct and eventually fired her from the role that she held for nine years. It later emerged that he had campaigned for Joe Biden during the 2020 presidential election."

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/three-heros-tuesday-may-14-2024-c

The fact that it took an independent, small-firm lawyer without decades of constitutional law experience to beat back an unconstitutional amendment, underscores the equally astonishing fact that our big law firms are hopelessly conflicted, AWOL, and financially unable to effectively defend our freedoms. The problem is that most big firms are greedy for taxpayer dollars and are terrified of getting slapped on a government blacklist for daring to oppose a law popular among government elites.

This explains a lot.

https://nypost.com/2024/05/14/us-news/us-woman-sues-astrazeneca-after-claiming-she-was-left-permanently-disabled-by-covid-vaccine/

Utah mom sues AstraZeneca, claiming she was left ‘permanently disabled’ in COVID vaccine trial

By Emily Crane
Published May 14, 2024

A Utah mother who says she was “permanently disabled” after taking part in the US clinical trial of AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine is suing the drug manufacturer because it failed to cough up enough cash to cover her medical expenses.

Brianne Dressen, 42, was “the picture of good health” when she started the British-made vaccine’s clinical trial in 2020 — but ended up developing a severe neurological condition, the lawsuit filed Monday alleges.

“I walked into the clinic fine, and walked out the beginning of a nightmare I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy,” Dressen said, per the court papers.

Seems possible to sue the genocidal criminals in Britain, unlike the US with its "Prep Act" immunity for murder.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-05-15/california-district-to-pay-360k-to-teacher-who-was-fired-after-refusing-to-follow-transgender-policies

SoCal district to pay $360K to teacher who was fired after refusing to follow transgender policies

A Riverside County school district has agreed to pay $360,000 to settle a lawsuit from a former teacher who was fired last year after refusing to adhere to policies regarding transgender or gender-nonconforming students, citing her Christian beliefs.

Jessica Tapia, who taught physical education at Jurupa Valley High School, claimed in her wrongful termination lawsuit that her free speech and religious rights had been violated. She had refused — hypothetically, in statements to district personnel — to use students’ preferred pronouns, to allow them to use the locker room matching their gender identity, or to “withhold information” from parents about their child’s gender identity, according to the federal lawsuit.

The Jurupa Unified School District did not admit any wrongdoing, but agreed to pay Tapia $285,000, as well as $75,000 for her attorneys’ fees, according to the settlement agreement signed Tuesday. Tapia also agreed not to seek future employment with the district, and both sides agreed to not disparage each other or file future lawsuits.

Julianne Fleischer, one of Tapia’s attorneys, called the settlement an “incredible victory.”

“Her religious beliefs were not accommodated when they could have been,” said Fleischer, legal counsel for Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a Murrieta-based nonprofit religious liberties group. “We think it sends a strong message that there’s a price to pay when you ask a teacher to lie and withhold information.”

Patrick says

“We think it sends a strong message that there’s a price to pay when you ask a teacher to lie and withhold information.”

No, you didn't. This was made into a "religion" issue which means that Muslim believes must be accommodated as well.

https://www.covidlawcast.com/p/not-giving-prescribed-ivermectin

Although many people have lost potential claims due to the inability to file within the statute of limitations, the fight is continuing and rulings are giving us ammunition for the next time, if our government is stupid enough to trigger one.

A great ruling today in New York’s Nassau County in SCOTT D. MANTEL, as Administrator for the Estate of DEBORAH BUCKO v. SOUTH NASSAU COMMUNITIES HOSPITAL d/b/a MOUNT SINAI SOUTH NASSAU. Congratulations to Attorney Steven M. Warshawsky!

From the Court:

As an initial matter, the Court notes that on this record, as thus far developed, there appears to be no dispute as to South Nassau being a “covered person” or Ivermectin being characterized as a “covered countermeasure” within the ambit of PREP. However, contrary to South Nassau’s assertions, the Plaintiff’s complaint neither “pleads a ‘claim[] for loss…relating to’ the use and administration of covered countermeasures to treat COVID-19” nor does it “arise[] solely from...[South Nassau’s] acts and decisions in dispensing covered countermeasures to...[the Decedent] for the treatment of her COVID19 infection”(NYSCEF Doc. No. 17 at pp. 2, 11). Rather, in stunning contrast to South Nassau’s assertions, the complaint alleges, with particularity, that South Nassau “acted wrongfully and negligently, by repeatedly refusing to administer ivermectin to...[the Decedent]” notwithstanding it “having been prescribed” by Dr. Clark and “despite clear evidence in the medical records that...[the decedent’s] condition showed significant improvement once the ivermectin treatment was initiated” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 5 at ¶ 60). In the instant matter, PREP confers “immunity only from ‘any claim for loss that has a causal relationship with the administration to or use by an individual of a covered countermeasure’” (Hudak v Elmcroft of Sagamore Hills, 58 F4th 845, 849 [6th Cir 2023] quoting 42 USC § 247d-6d [a][2][B]) and not with respect to “such a measure’s non-administration or non-use” (Hampton v California, 83 F4th 754, 763 [9th Cir 2023]), the latter of which is the central predicate upon which the Plaintiff’s complaint is based. Consistent with the above, the factual claims alleged in the complaint, which must be accepted as true and afforded the benefit of every favorable intendment (Nonnon v City of New York, supra at 827), are unequivocally based upon South Nassau’s “non-administration” of Ivermectin and accordingly the immunity afforded under PREP is inapplicable (Hampton v California, supra at 763).

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/parents-welcome-sc-notice-to-govt-on-vax-related-deaths-of-2-girls/articleshow/93913611.cms

Parents of two girls who allegedly died due to adverse effects after receiving Covid-19 vaccination have welcomed the Supreme Court's move seeking information from the government over the deaths of the girls.

Parents of 18-year-old Rithaika from Hyderabad and Karunya, 20, from Coimbatore had filed a petition in the top court last year, alleging that the girls died due to severe complications a few days after they received their first shot of vaccination.

"The SC has admitted our petition and the legal process of getting justice to our daughters' death has begun," said Venugopalan Govindan, Karunya's father. "These two lives lost are just representatives of countless other lives which have been lost similarly. I have hope that this will eventually result in necessary reparative measures and, more importantly, paving way for setting such processes in the country that will prevent the recurrence of such events in future."

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.