COVID-19
Federal court rules COVID shots don’t stop transmission of virus, sides with anti-mandate lawsuit
From LifeSiteNews
Judge R. Nelson affirmed that the COVID injections do not ‘prevent the spread of COVID-19’ and ruled in favor of a group of plaintiffs suing the Los Angeles school district for mandating the experimental jabs.
An appeals court ruled that mRNA COVID-19 shots do not prevent viral transmission and therefore that mandating COVID injections lacks legal basis.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Friday vacated the dismissal of a lawsuit against a California school district for mandating COVID shots, brought forth by the Health Freedom Defense Fund, California Educators for Medical freedom, and other plaintiffs.
The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) had required that employees get the injections or “lose their jobs,” which the plaintiffs said “interfered with their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment,” the appeals court noted.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California had defended LAUSD’s jab mandate on the grounds that the 1905 Supreme Court decision Jacobson v. Massachusetts upheld the right of states to mandate smallpox vaccinations.
READ: CDC discloses 780,000 new reports of serious side effects after COVID-19 vaccination
However, in an opinion penned by Judge R. Nelson, the Ninth Circuit appeals court said that the whole basis of Jacobson was the assumption that vaccines prevented the transmission of smallpox, whereas the plaintiffs in this case “have plausibly alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine does not effectively ‘prevent the spread’ of COVID-19.”
“At this stage, we must accept Plaintiff’s allegations that the vaccine does not prevent the spread of COVID-19 as true. And, because of this, Jacobson does not apply,” wrote Judge Nelson.
The plaintiffs also asserted that the mRNA COVID shots are not “traditional” vaccines, in part because the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) changed its definition of a “vaccine” in September 2021, from a product that “produce[s] immunity” to a “preparation” which “stimulate[s] the body’s immune response.”
“Their complaint’s crux is that the COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ is not a vaccine,” Nelson explained. “’Traditional’ vaccines, Plaintiffs claim, should prevent transmission or provide immunity to those who get them. But the COVID-19 vaccine does neither.”
READ: Japan’s most senior cancer doctor: COVID shots are ‘essentially murder’
As LifeSiteNews has previously reported, Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, affirmed during a European Union (EU) hearing that the pharma giant did not test the ability of its mRNA COVID-19 jabs to stop transmission of the virus, but pushed them through anyway to keep up with “the speed of science.”
This contradicted prior claims by CDC Director Rochelle Walensky and other prominent U.S. “experts” that the vast majority of people who had gotten “fully vaccinated” would not get or transmit COVID-19. U.S. President Joe Biden also falsely asserted that people who had gotten jabbed couldn’t spread COVID to others. Their claims lent credence to efforts in the United States and abroad to require people to get injected with the experimental shots before being allowed to participate in social life.
Dr. Anthony Fauci himself declared numerous times that people who take the injections become “dead ends to the virus,” before later reversing himself, as others supporters of the COVID jabs have done, including Bill Gates.
Small’s admission that Pfizer did not determine whether the COVID shots could stop transmission prompted Member of European Parliament Rob Roos to publicly declare that it was “shocking” and “even criminal” that governments allowed vaccine passports to become a reality when Pfizer had not even tested whether the shots stopped transmission.
READ: ‘So many have died’: Former Japanese minister apologizes for COVID jab-linked deaths
A significant body of evidence links serious risks to the COVID shots. Among it, VAERS reports 37,544 deaths, 216,213 hospitalizations, 21,668 heart attacks, and 28,366 myocarditis and pericarditis cases as of April 26, among other ailments. U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) researchers have recognized a “high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination,” leading to the conclusion that “under-reporting is more likely” than over-reporting.
From LifeSiteNews
A judge ruled that the Ontario Court of Justice is already ‘satisfied’ with Chris Barber’s sentence and taking away his very livelihood would be ‘disproportionate.’
A Canadian judge has dismissed a demand from Canadian government lawyers to seize Freedom Convoy leader Chris Barber’s “Big Red” semi-truck.
On Friday, Ontario Court of Justice Judge Heather Perkins-McVey denied the Crown’s application seeking to forfeit Barber’s truck.
She ruled that the court is already “satisfied” with Barber’s sentence and taking away his very livelihood would be “disproportionate.”
“This truck is my livelihood,” said Barber in a press release sent to LifeSiteNews.
“Trying to permanently seize it for peacefully protesting was wrong, and I’m relieved the court refused to allow that to happen,” he added.
Criminal defense lawyer Marwa Racha Younes was welcoming of the ruling as well, stating, “We find it was the right decision in the circumstances and are happy with the outcome.”
John Carpay, president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), said the decision is “good news for all Canadians who cherish their Charter freedom to assemble peacefully.”
READ: Freedom Convoy protester appeals after judge dismissed challenge to frozen bank accounts
“Asset forfeiture is an extraordinary power, and it must not be used to punish Canadians for participating in peaceful protest,” he added in the press release.
As reported recently by LifeSiteNews, the Canadian government claimed that Barber’s truck is an “offence-related property” relating to his involvement in the 2022 protests against Canada’s COVID mandates.
At this time, the court ruling ends any forfeiture proceedings for the time being, however Barber will continue to try and appeal his criminal conviction and house arrest sentence.
Barber’s truck, a 2004 Kenworth long-haul he uses for business, was a focal point in the 2022 protests. He drove it to Ottawa, where it was parked for an extended period of time, but he complied when officials asked him to move it.
On October 7, 2025, after a long trial, Ontario Court Justice Perkins-McVey sentenced Barber and Tamara Lich, the other Freedom Convoy leader, to 18 months’ house arrest. They had been declared guilty of mischief for their roles as leaders of the 2022 protest against COVID mandates, and as social media influencers.
Lich and Barber have filed appeals of their own against their house arrest sentences, arguing that the trial judge did not correctly apply the law on their mischief charges.
Government lawyers for the Crown have filed an appeal of the acquittals of Lich and Barber on intimidation charges.
The pair’s convictions came after a nearly two-year trial despite the nonviolent nature of the popular movement.
From LifeSiteNews
Protestor Evan Blackman’s legal team argues Trudeau’s Emergencies Act-based bank account freezes were punitive state action tied directly to protest participation.
A Freedom Convoy protester whose bank accounts were frozen by the Canadian government says a judge erred after his ruling did not consider the fact that the funds were frozen under the Emergencies Act, as grounds for a stay of proceedings.
In a press release sent out earlier this week, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) said that Freedom Convoy protestor Evan Blackman will challenge a court ruling in his criminal case via an appeal with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
“This case raises serious questions about how peaceful protest is treated in Canada and about the lasting consequences of the federal government’s unlawful use of the Emergencies Act,” noted constitutional lawyer Chris Fleury. “The freezing of protestors’ bank accounts was part of a coordinated effort to suppress dissent, and courts ought to be willing to scrutinize that conduct.”
Blackman was arrested on February 18, 2022, during the police crackdown on Freedom Convoy protests against COVID restrictions, which was authorized by the Emergencies Act (EA). The EA was put in place by former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government, which claimed the protests were violent, despite no evidence that this was the case.
Blackman’s three bank accounts with TD Bank were frozen due to his participation in the Freedom Convoy, following a directive ordered by Trudeau.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, in November of this year, Blackman was convicted at his retrial even though he had been acquitted at his original trial. In 2023, Blackman’s “mischief” and “obstructing police” charges were dismissed by a judge due to lack of evidence and the “poor memory of a cop regarding key details of the alleged criminal offences.”
His retrial resulted in Blackman getting a conditional discharge along with 12 months’ probation and 122 hours of community service, along with a $200 victim fine surcharge.
After this, Blackman’s application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed by the court. He had hoped to have his stay of proceedings, under section 24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, allowed. However, the judge ruled that the freezing of his bank accounts was legally not related to his arrest, and because of this, the stay of proceedings lacked standing.
The JCCF disagreed with this ruling, noting, it “stands in contrast to a Federal Court decision finding that the government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act was unreasonable and violated Canadians’ Charter rights, including those targeted by the financial measures used against Freedom Convoy protestors.”
As of press time, a hearing date has not been scheduled.
In 2024, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley ruled that Trudeau was “not justified” in invoking the Emergencies Act.
In early 2022, the Freedom Convoy saw thousands of Canadians from coast to coast come to Ottawa to demand an end to COVID mandates in all forms. Despite the peaceful nature of the protest, Trudeau’s federal government enacted the EA in mid-February.
After the protesters were cleared out, which was achieved through the freezing of bank accounts of those involved without a court order as well as the physical removal and arrest of demonstrators, Trudeau revoked the EA on February 23, 2022.
Argentina’s Milei delivers results free-market critics said wouldn’t work
‘Almost Sounds Made Up’: Jeffrey Epstein Was Bill Clinton Plus-One At Moroccan King’s Wedding, Per Report
Australian PM booed at Bondi vigil as crowd screams “shame!”
FDA warns ‘breast binder’ manufacturers to stop marketing to gender-confused girls
-
International1 day ago
Australian PM booed at Bondi vigil as crowd screams “shame!”
-
Business2 days agoThere’s No Bias at CBC News, You Say? Well, OK…
-
Uncategorized1 day agoMortgaging Canada’s energy future — the hidden costs of the Carney-Smith pipeline deal
-
Opinion2 days agoReligion on trial: what could happen if Canada passes its new hate speech legislation
-
Automotive18 hours agoCanada’s EV gamble is starting to backfire
-
Alberta15 hours agoAlberta Next Panel calls to reform how Canada works
-
Agriculture16 hours agoEnd Supply Management—For the Sake of Canadian Consumers
-
Digital ID5 hours agoCanadian government launches trial version of digital ID for certain licenses, permits