Might be wrong but i think this means any sort of vaccine program is illegal. Any restriction based on vaccine status could be considered coersive and there isnt an FDA approved product available = nonconsensual medical experimentation
: THE MILLS OF GOD (THE GODS) GRIND SLOWLY - "At some point a sinner will be punished; many decisions or events that are important in one's life take time in coming. Some 1,600 years ago the Greek philosopher Sextus Empiricus wrote: 'The mills of the gods grind slowly, but they grind small.'
One of Longfellow's translations was a 17th century poem, 'Retribution,' by Friedrich Von Logau:
: Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small;
: Though with patience he stands waiting, with exactness grinds he all.
The judge did acknowledge this, but did not provide relief for the plantiffs, set a court date for Sep 2022, by then the damage will have been done. Our courts are broken.
The childrenshealthdefense link doesnt actually link or even say who the judge is
Huh?? Just read through the page fully and you will see it. The name of the judge is literally in the URL itsel!
In an order issued Nov. 12 in Doe et al. v. Austin, U.S. Federal District Judge Allen Winsor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida denied a preliminary injunction requested by 16 service members against the U.S. Military’s COVID vaccine mandate. A hearing is scheduled for Sept. 14, 2022.
Ummm look at what you just wrote. "DENIED... injunction". That was the service members getting rejected. Where is the actual ruling saying that they aren't equivalent.
Oh, I think I was confused. The military members injunction was denied so it looked like they had lost the case, so I wasn't sure why it was being referenced. It looks like although they were denied the injunction, they also won on the claim that they are in fact not "interchangeable".
Yes, and the Judge was only ruling on the constitutionality of the DoD mandate and it was not an evidentiary hearing.
There was a very underhanded sleight of hand that the DoD used to argue that even if FDA did approve it illegally, the injury suffered by the plaintiffs is not due to FDA but rather due to DoD's mandate which they claimed would have gone ahead even without the approval, but they also acknowledge that it would have needed a Presidential EO, which they didn't have.
Personally, I find this argument so blatantly fake, and the judge not pointing it out more directly was a disappointment, even though the made the distinction between the two entities.
I believe this legal opinion can be used in other cases that may not even be related to the DoD mandate.
That is a huge boom.
As Dr. Malone has said they can not mandate any of this.
Also means all the claims that the jab is fda approved are false. Legal implications?
Might be wrong but i think this means any sort of vaccine program is illegal. Any restriction based on vaccine status could be considered coersive and there isnt an FDA approved product available = nonconsensual medical experimentation
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3
Section E in particular. Pfizer still under EUA, Comirnaty unavailable in the states. Cannot be mandated.
Opens the door to rescind DOD's "mandate."
Yes please.
Coke, Sam’s Cola, Shasta and Pepsi are identical, as far as the CDC is concerned. Different ingredients but same general effects
That may well be.
However, they are also legally distinct, as are the Pfizer EUA product and Comirnaty.
So... it's either an Impeachable offense or we're gonna discover that Trump is actually CnC and never ordered this.
But at least they are turning!
“Wheels of justice grind slow but grind fine”
― Sun Tzu
Other possible sources:
: THE MILLS OF GOD (THE GODS) GRIND SLOWLY - "At some point a sinner will be punished; many decisions or events that are important in one's life take time in coming. Some 1,600 years ago the Greek philosopher Sextus Empiricus wrote: 'The mills of the gods grind slowly, but they grind small.'
One of Longfellow's translations was a 17th century poem, 'Retribution,' by Friedrich Von Logau: : Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small; : Though with patience he stands waiting, with exactness grinds he all.
Does this look like a situation where someone in the military that was coerced into being double vaxxed can sue the govt?
The article link: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/judge-allen-winsor-pfizer-eua-comirnaty-vaccines-interchangeable/
The judge did acknowledge this, but did not provide relief for the plantiffs, set a court date for Sep 2022, by then the damage will have been done. Our courts are broken.
I believe the mandate stays, but only applies for Comirnaty and not Pfizer EUA. I believe we will see the result of this soon
I hope so.
Fucking mandates are DEAD! FJB!!
Not yet, the judgement is quite involved and is worth reading.
TY fren. will do
Where is the actual ruling from the judge. The childrenshealthdefense link doesnt actually link or even say who the judge is. Anyone have it?
Huh?? Just read through the page fully and you will see it. The name of the judge is literally in the URL itsel!
Ummm look at what you just wrote. "DENIED... injunction". That was the service members getting rejected. Where is the actual ruling saying that they aren't equivalent.
Are you asking a new question or are you doubling down on you previous assertion?
Oh, I think I was confused. The military members injunction was denied so it looked like they had lost the case, so I wasn't sure why it was being referenced. It looks like although they were denied the injunction, they also won on the claim that they are in fact not "interchangeable".
Yes, and the Judge was only ruling on the constitutionality of the DoD mandate and it was not an evidentiary hearing.
There was a very underhanded sleight of hand that the DoD used to argue that even if FDA did approve it illegally, the injury suffered by the plaintiffs is not due to FDA but rather due to DoD's mandate which they claimed would have gone ahead even without the approval, but they also acknowledge that it would have needed a Presidential EO, which they didn't have.
Personally, I find this argument so blatantly fake, and the judge not pointing it out more directly was a disappointment, even though the made the distinction between the two entities.
I believe this legal opinion can be used in other cases that may not even be related to the DoD mandate.