Sunday, June 9, 2024

Limiting government overreach

A Daring Rescue and a Surprise from the Ninth Circuit


Taking a step away from this exciting rescue, we notice that the scarf lady Deborah Birx, who admits to manipulating the data to persuade then-President Trump to announce a lockdown, is now CEO of a pharmaceutical company working on Bird Flu vaccine. She and WHO are drumming up scares about the Bird Flu and its effects on food production and human life. Interestingly, the one report of human infection seems utter fabrication. The purported victim was an overweight, ill prisoner, and the Mexican Health Secretary denies WHO’s claim that citizen died of bird flu. He was a 59-year-old man who had diabetes, hypertension, and no contact with poultry.  

And if the Deep State has plans to force us to take unproven “vaccines” again the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals just rendered an opinion that should make such draconian, unconstitutional efforts much harder to pass judicial muster. Health Freedom Defense Fund, et al v. Alberto Carvalho, et el, Case No. 22-55908 (9th Cir.).

Brant Hadaway

My client, @theHFDF, has won another huge victory, this time in the 9th Circuit! This was a case that I prosecuted in Central District of California challenging @LASchools mandatory COVID vaccination mandate for all school employees. A majority panel of the 9th Circuit held that, first, the case was not mooted by another attempt by @LASchools to manipulate a court's jurisdiction and, second, because the district court misapplied the SCOTUS's 1905 decision in Jacobson v. Mass. For the first time, as far as I am aware, a circuit court has explicitly drawn limits on Jacobson -- a decision to which nearly every court in country genuflected when considering challenges to COVID mandates. The majority's ruling holds that Jacobson only applied to measures to prevent the spread of disease, and that we had credibly pled that the COVID vaccines were not designed or intended to prevent disease spread, but were only designed to reduce the severity of illness in infected persons. Therefore, the majority held that Jacobson does not apply. [emphasis supplied.]

In a concurring opinion, Judge Collins wrote that measures to protect an individual from getting sick, as opposed to preventing disease spread, fell under a separate line of authority for the proposition that each person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment. That was exactly our theory of the case. Now we will see what happens on remand!

Facts have long established that the Covid vaccine did not prevent the spread of Covid, and the CDC’s redefinition of “vaccine” was surely designed to fool people into thinking otherwise.

Julie Hamill emphasizes the nub of the ruling:

Jacobson held that mandatory vaccinations were rationally related to “preventing the spread” of smallpox. (citation). 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.” (citation). 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."[/quote[]

All told, it was a wonderful ending to the week.

No comments: