Good luck. In the past, lawsuits brought against the Fed Govy by AD Service Members have Ben thrown out, due to the "no lawsuit clause" listed in the contract that EVERY service member signs upon entry. If you can't sue for damages sustained in training that aren't the fault of the service member, and can't sie for damages caused by other "vaccination programs" like anthrax and smallpox, I highly doubt this one will be successful. Not trying to doom, just trying to bring a little more context to their struggle.
"EUA products are by definition experimental and thus require the right to refuse. Under the
Nuremberg Code, the foundation of ethical medicine, no one may be coerced to participate in a
medical experiment. Consent of the individual is “absolutely essential.” A federal court held that
the U.S. military could not mandate EUA vaccines to soldiers. Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297
F.Supp.2d 119 (2003). The court held: "...the United States cannot demand that members of the
armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs." Id. at 135. No court has ever
upheld a mandate for an EUA vaccine."
I read this one includes federal employees and contractor employees as well, so it's a combined lawsuit encompassing all the groups impacted by the EO rather than just the military. Wondering if that will allow it to play out differently.
Anthrax, smallpox, yellow fever, etc. would be in the same category as COVID-19 with a 99.98% rate of recovery, at which point antibodies are superior? Also, we’re talking about the mandate of an EUA authorized only vaccine. How’s that work?
Good luck. In the past, lawsuits brought against the Fed Govy by AD Service Members have Ben thrown out, due to the "no lawsuit clause" listed in the contract that EVERY service member signs upon entry. If you can't sue for damages sustained in training that aren't the fault of the service member, and can't sie for damages caused by other "vaccination programs" like anthrax and smallpox, I highly doubt this one will be successful. Not trying to doom, just trying to bring a little more context to their struggle.
"EUA products are by definition experimental and thus require the right to refuse. Under the Nuremberg Code, the foundation of ethical medicine, no one may be coerced to participate in a medical experiment. Consent of the individual is “absolutely essential.” A federal court held that the U.S. military could not mandate EUA vaccines to soldiers. Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (2003). The court held: "...the United States cannot demand that members of the armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs." Id. at 135. No court has ever upheld a mandate for an EUA vaccine."
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/notice-for-employers-universities-and-other-institutions-mandating-covid-19-vaccines8.31.21.pdf
I read this one includes federal employees and contractor employees as well, so it's a combined lawsuit encompassing all the groups impacted by the EO rather than just the military. Wondering if that will allow it to play out differently.
Have you read what Q has said about Class-Action? It is in the script.
Something about them being "very effective".
Or as fake faggots like Fauci say "efficacious" when they're lying through their teeth, and being super ironically affectatious 😁
Anthrax, smallpox, yellow fever, etc. would be in the same category as COVID-19 with a 99.98% rate of recovery, at which point antibodies are superior? Also, we’re talking about the mandate of an EUA authorized only vaccine. How’s that work?