patrick.net

The lawsuit v Pfizer by TX Attorney General, Ken Paxton is dismissed

PREP Act and EUA law pre-empt civil lawsuits. These suits are theater/political campaigning. AGs serious about prosecution should bring criminal charges, not civil complaints. ...

The AG Paxton’s (TX) case against Pfizer for deceptive marketing practices under TX law has been dismissed. The judge cited PREP Act as the reason for dismissal as it pre-empts state law and regulatory authority. ...

Both Katherine Watt and I have written extensively about Prep Act and EUA law, describing them as the wall of the legal kill box that must be dismantled before any justice and accountability can begin for the covid crimes. As HHS Scy, RFK Jr can terminate the PREP Act declarations for covid and other fake “pandemic” emergencies (now active until end of 2029), but the PREP Act itself must be nullified by legislators. States can nullify the federal law, and the US Congress can act, too. AGs of states have authority to bring criminal charges, instead of filing pointless civil complaints.

However, the ruling of the following case clearly establishes that a person could not be legally compelled to participate in medical treatment to save another person's life.

Definition of compelled: : to cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure and esp. by authority or law
https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/compel.html

Constitutional Limits on Such Authority
Even if either the federal or a state government is acting within its authority to respond to COVID-19, a state of emergency does not give it free rein to violate constitutional rights.

https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/alerts/covid-19-emergency-powers-and-constitutional-limits

McFall v. Shimp and the Case for Bodily Autonomy
Written By Alexia Ingram

The case, McFall v. Shimp (1978), ruled that a person could not be legally compelled to participate in medical treatment to save another person's life. The holding of McFall v. Shimp extends beyond this narrow circumstance; Judge John P. Flaherty applied the ruling to the moral obligations of people and other living things, citing the duty of the court to protect the individual from being invaded and hurt by others. [1] McFall v. Shimp employs the physical body's rights and duties, consistent with the discussion of reproductive rights during pregnancy—given the ongoing discourse on the legality of abortion, a critical examination of bodily integrity is necessary to distinguish moral conflicts from legal obligations. McFall v. Shimp set a legal precedent that an individual is not under compulsion to aid another person at their mental or physical expense, upholding the right to bodily autonomy found at the center of the debate on the legality of abortion.

https://hulr.org/spring-2021/mcfall-v-shimp-and-the-case-for-bodily-autonomy

Press ReleasePublished: Jul 28, 2023

Hearing Wrap Up: COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates Sacrificed Individual Freedoms for False Security
Key Takeaways

The Biden Administration forced a novel COVID-19 vaccine on millions of Americans without considering the health of the individual or natural immunity. Removing physicians from this medical decision was politically expedient in the short term but has had disastrous long-term consequences.

https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-covid-19-vaccine-mandates-sacrificed-individual-freedoms-for-false-security/

In overturning a disciplinary decision of the Order of Physicians, the Court of Cassation stressed that a disciplinary authority such as the Order cannot impose its own interpretations to discredit value judgments. As the Court so aptly expressed: "In a debate of general interest, freedom of expression cannot be limited to the presentation of generally accepted ideas alone; it extends to the dissemination of information that offends, shocks or disturbs in areas where certainty is lacking." ...

These precedents confirm that, in complex debates such as those on health measures or vaccination, the plurality of voices is essential to guarantee a genuine democratic debate.

A very embarrassing case law for the Order

Concretely, the Order of Physicians has the possibility of reintroducing disciplinary proceedings against the practitioner concerned, but the arguments on which the procedure was based have been invalidated by the Court of Cassation, making any new action very unlikely.

This ruling also opens the way for other doctors sanctioned by the Order during the Covid crisis to assert this decision, in particular by invoking the cancellation of their own sanctions. In theory, this could also make it possible to claim compensation for the damages suffered, although the legal feasibility of such steps depends on specific cases and could require in-depth analysis. Furthermore, this decision strengthens the hope for the doctors concerned to restore their reputation and effectively contest the disciplinary measures taken against them. We are thinking in particular of Dr Alain Colignon, Dr Pascal Sacré, Dr Laurence Kayser, Dr David Bouillon, Dr Gaëtane Beeckaert, Dr Frédéric Goareguer, Dr Cécile Andri, Dr Stéphane Résimont and many others.

A federal judge in California has rejected an effort by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to overturn a jury verdict that awarded $7.8 million to six former employees who were fired for refusing to comply with the agency’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate on religious grounds.

A federal judge in California has rejected an effort by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to overturn a jury verdict that awarded $7.8 million to six former employees who were fired for refusing to comply with the agency’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate on religious grounds.