Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

COVID-19

Federal court rules COVID shots don’t stop transmission of virus, sides with anti-mandate lawsuit

Published

5 minute read

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.”

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

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.

COVID-19

Ontario gov’t drops over 100 fines from COVID era for compliance violations

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Charges were withdrawn for violations of the Quarantine Act ‘due to a lack of reasonable prospect of conviction, delay, non-appearance of the government’s witness at trial, or a decision taken by the Crown not to proceed.’

Canadian legal advocacy group The Democracy Fund (TDF) says that because of generous donor support it secured the staying or withdrawal of 109 COVID-era tickets given to multiple people in Ontario.

The TDF said in a press update sent to LifeSiteNews that most often the charges were withdrawn or stayed “due to a lack of reasonable prospect of conviction, delay, non-appearance of the government’s witness at trial, or a decision taken by the Crown not to proceed.”

“It’s gratifying to see our hard work pay off, and a relief to our clients who have endured years of legal uncertainty,” TDF paralegal Jenna Little said.

“But the government is still doggedly pursuing many clients for charges that should not have been brought in the first place and consume scarce judicial resources.”

The TDF observed that its clients were charged under the Quarantine Act s.15 (failure to provide information to screening officer), s.58 (failure to complete ArriveCan, failure to arrange for quarantine), or s.66 (obstruct an officer).

It noted that the fine for each charge was around $5,000, with “with potential total fines for conviction on all charges reaching $681,250.”

“Though many of these cases have been successfully resolved, many remain,” the TDF said.

Some of the charges were issued under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, such as s.7.0.11 (obstruct an officer), which can carry a one-year jail sentence and a $10,000 fine.

The TDF stated that in “rare cases” some clients were also charged under “s.10 of the Reopening Act (gather or fail to close premises).”

The TDF noted that despite the recent court wins, there are still “hundreds” of clients who are facing “potential fines and jail time for peacefully protesting or objecting to government overreach during COVID lockdowns.”

The TDF said that during COVID the government used the opportunity to enact “rights-infringing, overbroad laws.”

“Legislators and bureaucrats zealously enforced these laws against Canadians in an effort to secure compliance and suppress peaceful protest. Fortunately, The Democracy Fund (TDF) and its team of lawyers and paralegals, with the support of generous donors, fought back,” it said.

The TDF, founded in 2021, bills itself as a Canadian charity “dedicated to constitutional rights, advancing education and relieving poverty,” by promoting constitutional rights “through litigation and public education.”

In early July, LifeSiteNews reported that TDF lawyers helped get criminal charges against a Canadian man who participated in the pro-family 1 Million March 4 Children protest over radical LGBT ideology being taught in public schools dropped by the Crown.

Over the last couple of years, the TDF has been active in helping Canadians persecuted under COVID mandates and rules fight back. Notable people it has helped include Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill, an Ontario pediatrician who has been embroiled in a legal battle with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) for her anti-COVID views. She has also had the help of Elon Musk.

COVID vaccine mandates, which came from provincial governments with the support of the federal government, split Canadian society. The mRNA shots have been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Court decision allows Trudeau gov’t to avoid accountability on COVID travel app, top legal group says

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Four Canadians who refused to comply with the government’s border surveillance program had charges against them withdrawn, but no determination was made on the constitutionality of forcing the unvaccinated to quarantine.

A constitutional legal group says a recent court decision to withdraw charges leveled against four men who refused to go along with a COVID border surveillance program means the federal government “escaped accountability” for rules that targeted jab-free Canadians.

“This outcome is bittersweet for each of our clients,” said Chris Fleury, an attorney for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), in a recent press release sent to LifeSiteNews.

“It is positive for each of them personally. On the other hand, they were deeply interested in seeking a determination of the constitutionality of the irrational and unscientific decision forcing unvaccinated Canadians to quarantine.”

Fleury noted that the court ruling means the federal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has “again escaped accountability for Covid policy decisions that breached Canadians’ Charter rights.”

The JCCF said the City of Mississauga withdrew “five charges against four Canadians who refused to comply with ArriveCAN requirements at the Toronto Pearson International Airport.”

The federal government’s $59.5 million scandal-ridden ArriveCAN travel app was introduced in April 2020 and mandated in November 2020. The app was used to track the COVID jab status of those entering the country and to enforce quarantines when deemed necessary.

When the app was mandated, all travelers entering Canada had to use it to submit their travel and contact information as well as any COVID vaccination details before crossing the border or boarding a flight.

In February, LifeSiteNews reported that Conservative Party MPs accused the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) of lying to Parliament over sweetheart contracting approvals concerning ArriveCAN.

Man revealed COVID jab status after breaking down under ‘pressure,’ then hit will $5,000 fine

“After arriving in Toronto from the Netherlands, Mr. Sly-Hooten felt that his personal medical information should remain private and chose not to disclose his vaccination status via ArriveCAN. In response, Peel Regional Police and Public Health Agency of Canada personnel detained him,” the JCCF said.

The JCCF added that “under pressure” and without any “counsel,” Sly-Hooten “broke down and revealed his vaccination status.”

“He received a $5,000 ticket for violating the Quarantine Act and was ordered to quarantine in his home for 14 days,” the JCCF explained.

The JCCF noted that it was able to help Sly-Hooten launch a constitutional challenge “against ArriveCAN, citing his right to liberty, his right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure, his right to be free from arbitrary arrest and detention, and his right to counsel after arrest and detention – all protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

Other withdrawn tickets include those issued to Mark Spence, Aaron Grubb, and Evan Kraayenbrink.

The JCCF noted that, like Sly-Hooten, “each were charged for choosing not to provide information via ArriveCAN and were ordered to quarantine for 14 days.”

“Prosecutors have withdrawn the charges because they believe it is not in the public interest to expend further resources on a trial,” the JCCF said. “This outcome follows a similar pattern of ArriveCAN-related charges being dropped before their trials in what appears to be an attempt to shield the controversial program from constitutional scrutiny. In other words, charges are being dropped before the merits of constitutional challenges to ArriveCAN can be heard by the courts.”

Canadians were told ArriveCAN was supposed to have cost $80,000, but the number quickly ballooned to $54 million, with the latest number showing it cost $59.5 million.

The app itself was riddled with tech glitches along with privacy concerns from users.

Canadian Auditor General Karen Hogan announced an investigation of ArriveCAN in November 2022 after the House of Commons voted 173-149 for a full audit of the controversial app.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO) is investigating how various companies such as Dalian, Coaradix, and GC Strategies received millions in taxpayer dollars to develop the contentious quarantine-tracking program.

Continue Reading

Trending

X