Pfizer False Claims Case

Pfizer False Claims Case

Pfizer False Claims Case

Re: the Legality of Making False Safety & Efficacy Claims of the Pfizer Covid Injection

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Jan 8, 2021 (filed)
  • Location: USA
  • Court: Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division
  • Case #:  1:21-cv-00008-MJT
  • Plaintiff: USA ex rel  Brook Jackson
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Warner Mendenhall
  • Defendant: Ventavia Research Group, Llc; Pfizer Inc; Icon Plc
  • Trial Type: Federal False Claims Act
  • Judge:
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: TBD


*updated Aug 31, 2022

Background

Brook Jackson is a Clinical Research Auditor turned whistleblower who worked for Ventavia company (a contractor for Pfizer) on the phase III clinical trial of Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine.

Jackson commenced her employment with Ventavia on 8th September 2020 as a Regional Director, supervising two of three trial sites involved in the clinical. Immediately after starting her work she observed several glaring quality outages in the way the trials were being performed, including the following:

all trial participants had been unblinded from July to September 2020 in the in the randomised double blind trials, thus invalidating the protocol (1)

  • Ventavia staff were not following the patient informed consent procedure
  • Required signatures were not being obtained and sometimes being forged
  • Vaccines were not being stored under the specified low temperature conditions
  • A dominant culture of sloppiness, rushing the work and falsifying records existed in the company
  • Adverse events were not being properly recorded

Brook explains that when the unblinding error was discovered, Ventavia staff were asked to remove the evidence and lie to Pfizer about the unblinding.

Brook subsequently shared all her findings with Ventavia expecting that they would take corrective action. However since there was no action, she anonymously reported her findings to Pfizer, again without results. Finally on the morning of 25th September she informed the FDA.

I took it to a regulatory authority that I believed and trusted … was there to protect patient safety and  look at the big picture.

Ventavia fired her 6 hours later giving as the only reason that she was not a good fit with the company.

Her lawyer, Warner Mendenhall said of her termination: This is really remarkable that the Federal government apparently has reached out to Pfizer and revealed / unblinded the whistleblower who has come forward. I mean, we actually do have a process to blind and protect whistleblowers in the country for a reason. Its so that this stuff can come forward and the information be shared with the Federal government and collected. . When I first started in the 90s I felt like the federal government was very protective of   whistle blowers  to preserve their anonymity and now, recently, I see the Federal government reaching out , in two instances recently, and unblinding the whistle blower which causes them to be fired and lose the capacity to continue to investigate.  (2)

Even after being fired, Jackson had expected that following her whistleblowing action would at least result in an inspection of the Ventavia site by FDA auditors. However, after three months waiting for this without any action from the FDA, Jackson decided to file a false claims lawsuit  against Pfizer and its associates Ventavia and ICON (3)

The lawsuit (4) was filed in Texas on Jan 8 2021. It was held under seal for 60 days during which Jackson could not talk publicly about the lawsuit. Jackson has actually said that she has been prevented from talking about the filing for a year (5).

 

Significance

First legal challenge in USA of Pfizers product safety and efficacy claims

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

Brook Jackson argues that Pfizer and its associates involved in the clinical trials are in breach of the False Claims Act because they knowingly brought the Covid-19 vaccine onto the market while making safety claims which could not be supported based on Jacksons observation of quality outages in the running of the clinical trials.

 

Defendant’s Argument

Pfizer, Ventavia and ICON have argued that the case should be dismissed because the government already knew about the fraud based on Jacksons whistleblowing actions. Therefore, they argue, a legal action under the False Claims Act is not supportable or appropriate. (5)

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…

 

Decision

This case is ongoing

 

Aftermath

This case is ongoing 

 


Further Research

Court Documents:
In the news:

 

Media


Ventavia Unblinded Randomised Trial Participants -Aug 13 2021

source: Odysee/shortXXvids


Federal Gov. Revealed Jackson’s Identity to Pfizer -Aug 13 2022

source: Odysee/shortXXvids


False Claims Act Lawsuit Filing -Aug 13 2022

source: Odysee/shortXXvids


Back to All Cases

 

LAUSD School Vaccine Case

LAUSD School Vaccine Case

LAUSD Vaccine Case

Re: the Legality of Mandating the Covid “Vaccine” to Children & Segregating those who Refuse

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Oct 8, 2021 (filed)
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
  • Court: Superior Court of California- Civil Division
  • Case #: 21STCP03381
  • Plaintiff: Father & Son
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer:
  • Defendant: LAUSD Schools
  • Trial Type: Civil
  • Judge: Mitchell L. Beckloff
  • Status: Decided (July 5, 2022)
  • Verdict: for the Plaintiff


*updated July 11, 2022

 

Background

A parent of a 12-year-old student at the Science Academy STEM Magnet school filed court papers challenging the Los Angeles Unified School District’s mandate that all students aged 12 and older be fully vaccinated against the coronavirus by Jan. 10 to enter campus unless they have a medical or other exemption. [1]

The plaintiff is identified only as G.F. in the lawsuit brought on behalf of the parent and the student, who is identified only as D.F. [1]

The district’s mandate requires all eligible students aged 12 and older to be vaccinated against the coronavirus by Jan. 10 to enter campus unless they have a medical or other exemptions. [2]

 

The Science Academy STEM Magnet school, located in North Hollywood, is a seven-year, college-preparatory public school that incorporates science, technology, engineering and mathematics. G.F.’s court papers state that D.F. studied hard to pass the entrance exam to be admitted to the school and does not want to have to leave because he and his parent choose to not have him receive the COVID-19 vaccine. [1]

“Losing his spot at the school would devastate D.F. and potentially foreclose future educational opportunities,” G.F’s court papers state. [1]

G.F. presented a notice to the LAUSD on Sept. 24 demanding that the vaccine mandate be rescinded, but the district did not respond, according to G.F.’s court papers. [1]

The following statement comes from September 9, 2021, from the Interim Superintendent of the LAUSD Megan K. Reilly: [5]

All students who are 12 years of age and older and are part of in-person extracurricular programs, must receive their first vaccine dose by no later than October 3, and their second dose by no later than October 31, 2021. All students who are 12 years of age and older must receive their first vaccine dose by no later than November 21, 2021, and their second dose by no later than December 19, 2021. All other students must receive their first vaccine dose by no later than 30 days after their 12th birthday, and their second dose by no later than 8 weeks after their 12th birthday.”

A spokesperson for the LAUSD released the following statement to City News Service: [5]

“In April of this year (2022), the Los Angeles Unified School District aligned with the state’s timeline for implementation of the governor’s student vaccine mandate wherein any vaccine requirement would not take effect until after full FDA approval and no sooner than July 1, 2023. Accordingly, the district’s alignment with the governor’s student vaccine mandate has allowed Los Angeles Unified students to enroll and attend in-person instruction. Los Angeles Unified will continue to take measures to ensure the health and safety of its students, employees, and school community.”

 

Significance

This case follows the San Diego ruling which ended the vaccine in that city’s schools. A similar decision could see more such rulings.

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

G.F. maintained the state and not the LAUSD is authorized to issue vaccination mandates and that the district’s requirement that unvaccinated pupils 12 years old and over attend independent learning classes outside campus violates the state Education Code. [3]

Coronavirus cases in the LAUSD have declined since teachers and children returned to in-person instruction in August, G.F.’s court papers state. In addition, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has found that children with the coronavirus have mild symptoms or none at all and that they rarely spread the virus, according to the court papers. [1]

Healthy children who have a natural immunity to COVID-19 and have not received the vaccine should not be discriminated against by the LAUSD, G.F.’s court papers state. In addition, keeping healthy children out of the classroom is contrary to state law and the students affected will not be able to make up for lost in-person learning, according to G.F.’s court papers. [1]

D.F., who has received all other required childhood immunizations, will suffer irreparable harm if not allowed to continue with his in-person learning and his two extra-curricular activities, G.F.’s court papers state. [1]

In a sworn declaration, G.F. says he believes the vaccine could irreparably harm his son, who has already contracted and recovered from the coronavirus and may have strong natural immunity. [3]

“Further, I worry that vaccinating him could prove even more dangerous now that he has had COVID-19,” G.F. says. “Among other things, I fear that the vaccination could overexcite his immune system and antibodies.” [3]

Having weighed those risks against what he believes to be a “statistically minuscule risk” that his son will contract the coronavirus again, G.F. says he “vehemently objects to LAUSD’s attempt to force his (son’s) vaccination.” [3]

 

Defendant’s Argument

In their court papers, LAUSD lawyers maintain that the court relief sought by G.F. and his son “fails on every conceivable level” and should have been denied. [3]

The relief sought by G.F. “asks this court to ignore the life-threatening risks presented by COVID-19 and the corresponding threat it poses to public education,”  the LAUSD attorneys argued in their court papers. [3]

 

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

The group Let Them Breathe filed a lawsuit against the district in October 2021 in an attempt to enjoin the state from enforcing the mandate for students ages 12 and older, asserting that the requirement violates the law. [7]

San Diego Superior Court Judge John Meyer ruled in favor of the anti-mask group, determining that the vaccine requirement was in breach of state law. School staff, however, will still have to abide by the mandate. [7]

Meyer ruled that the state legislature, not the school districts themselves, has the power to enforce a vaccine mandate for school attendance. [7]

“The statutory scheme leaves no room for each of the over 1,000 individual school districts to impose a patchwork of additional vaccine mandates, including those like the [San Diego Unified vaccine] Roadmap that lack a personal belief exemption and therefore are even stricter than what the [state health department] could itself impose upon learned consideration,” Meyer wrote in a ruling, according to The San Diego Union-Tribune. [7]

Meyer said that though the California legislature has granted the state public health department authority to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine for schools, with the requirement that allowances be made for personal belief exemptions, the body did not give school districts the same power. [7]

See here for more “Let Them Breathe” Legal Actions

 

Proceedings

During a hearing in April (?) Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff said he was initially inclined to find in favor of the LAUSD [3]

 

Decision

Finding that the Board of Education’s authority is “great, but not unlimited,” Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff ruled in favor of the father of a 12-year-old student who challenged the Los Angeles Unified School District’s student COVID vaccine mandate, finding that the resolution approving the directive clashes with state law. [3]

The judge noted in his ruling that if D.F. remains unvaccinated, he will be forced to leave the academy and be subjected to a different curriculum. Beckloff further said that while the Board of Education’s authority is “great,” it is not unlimited. He found that the student vaccine resolution approved Sept. 9 conflicts with state law and clashes with the state Health and Safety Code by not allowing exemptions for personal beliefs. [3]

“While LAUSD argues the court’s ruling should apply to D.F. only, the court finds no justification for such a limitation given the board’s lack of authority to adopt the resolution,” Beckloff wrote. [3]

In his decision, Beckloff wrote that, with the exception of 10 vaccines that the state Legislature previously required of children to attend school in person, any new childhood immunization mandate must include a personal belief exemption clause. He noted that LAUSD’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate does not allow for that exemption. [6]

“That LAUSD’s resolution does not exempt the COVID-19 vaccine for personal beliefs is in direct conflict with (state) Health and Safety Code,” Beckloff wrote. [6]

He went on to say the Legislature “intended to preclude local legislation on a matter of state concern.” [6]

The district had also sought to have the court’s ruling apply only to D.F., instead of all students, but the judge disagreed. [6]

“The court finds no justification for such a limitation given the board’s lack of authority to adopt the resolution,” Beckloff wrote. [6]

 

Aftermath

Reaction from the Plaintiffs:

Arie Spangler, attorney for the plaintiff, said in a statement that the ruling “confirms that individual school districts do not have the authority to impose vaccination requirements in excess of statewide requirements.” [6]

“We are very pleased with the ruling, as it ensures that Los Angeles Unified School District cannot force children out of the classroom due to their Covid-19 vaccination status,” she stated. [6]

 
Reaction from the LAUSD:

The district, in its own statement, noted that the district bumped its timeline for implementing any student vaccination mandate to align with the state’s mandate and that any such requirement won’t take effect before full approval of a vaccine by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and no sooner than July 1, 2023. [6]

“Accordingly, the District’s alignment with the Governor’s student vaccine mandate has allowed Los Angeles Unified students to enroll and attend in-person instruction,” the district said. “Los Angeles Unified will continue to take measures to ensure the health and safety of its students, employees and school community.” [6]

 
Reaction from Supporters:

Following the Judge’s ruling in favor of the child’s father, parents Tweeted about the results of the hearing.  Suzanne Bird @Skylar1 reminded parents, that they could, “now file for damages from illegal vaccine mandates.” [5]

The news was celebrated online by the activist group “Let Them Breathe”: 

Ruling against LAUSD vax mandate follows Let Them Breathe win against SDUSD vax mandate. We expect to prevail against Granada Hills & New West Charter schools. Schools like Willows & Mirman should immediately end mandates. Kids have a right education & we will uphold that right! [3]

Reopen California added

“HUGE NEWS: A judge ruled this morning that LASchools’ student Covid vaccine mandate was illegal, blocking LAUSD from sending kids to independent study for not getting the Covid vaccine,” Reopen California tweeted. [3]

“Even though LAUSD delayed their mandate to align with the state timeline, they still intended on excluding kids from in-person instruction if they did not get the Covid vaccine,” [3]

 
Los Angeles Daily News: [6]

A judge has struck down the Los Angeles Unified School District’s COVID-19 student vaccination mandate, finding that only the state can force students in California to get the vaccine to attend school in person. [6]

In a decision issued Tuesday, July 5, L.A. Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff dealt a blow to the nation’s second-largest school district when he determined that the LAUSD school board’s authority is “great, but not unlimited,” and sided with the father of a 12-year-old student who last fall sued the district over its student vaccination mandate. [6]

While the decision marks a major win for opponents of vaccine mandates, it has no immediate bearing on families in LAUSD. The school board had already voted in May to delay its vaccine mandate for students – which requires students 12 and older to get the COVID-19 shot – for at least one school year to align with the state’s timeline for implementing its own mandate. [6]

The district’s vaccination mandate for employees remains in effect. [6]

Nevertheless, the judge’s ruling this week was received as an encouraging sign to those who have been pushing back on COVID-19-related school mandates. [6]

Beckloff’s ruling also comes after LAUSD recently ended its weekly COVID-19 testing program of all students and staff on campus. At this point, only students or staff on campus will be required to test based on need, such as if they’re experiencing symptoms or are exposed to an infected person. [6]

 


Further Research

Court Documents:
  • Read the Court Ruling
In the news:
  • …More information is needed…

 

Media


Judge rules against San Diego Unified in vaccine mandate lawsuit -Dec 20221

source: CBS 8 San Diego


OSHA Vaccine Mandate Supreme Court Ruling -Jan 2022

source: the John Birch Society


Parents vs LAUSD vaccine mandate have their day in court (Dec 2021)

source: FOX 11 Los Angeles


Back to All Cases

 

Military Mandate Case

Military Mandate Case

Military Mandate Case

Re: the Legality by the DoD to force Covid Injections unto Military Personal who Object on Religious Grounds

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Date Filed: Oct. 15, 2021
  • Location: Florida, USA
  • Court: US District Court, Middle District of Florida
  • Case #: 8:21-cv-2429-SDM-TGW
  • Plaintiffs: Navy Seal 1, et al
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Liberty Counsel
  • Defendant: Lloyd Austin, DoD secretary
  • Trial Type: Human Rights
  • Judge: Steven Merryday
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: TBD


*updated Apr 27, 2022

 

Background

Liberty Counsel on Friday (Oct 15, 2021) announced a class action lawsuit on behalf of members of all five branches of the U.S. military – the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard – against President Joe Biden over his orders they take the experimental COVID shots or face dishonorable discharge. [1]

“The Biden administration has no authority to require the COVID shots for the military or for federal employees or civilian contractors,” explained Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel chairman. [1]

“Nor can the Biden administration pretend that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment do not apply to its unlawful mandates. The commander-in-chief must end this shameful treatment and abuse of our brave military heroes. Forcing the COVID shots without consent or consideration for their sincere religious beliefs is illegal.” [1]

It seeks a temporary restraining order preventing Biden and his appointees from “enforcing, threatening to enforce, attempting to enforce, or otherwise requiring compliance with the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate…” [1]

Other defendants are Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas. [1]

Liberty Counsel said the non-military plaintiffs include a Department of Defense contractor who has conducted Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance quantitative and qualitative assessments and studies, whose assessments are briefed to DOD senior leadership to inform decisions on future employment, allocation, and procurement; a federal civilian engineer employed by a large military defense contractor that provides LCD screens used in United States Armed Forces aircraft; a federal civilian contractor employer whose company develops and supports military weapons systems, including current and next generation land vehicles for the Army and next generation Navy vessels; a federal nuclear contractor employee who is a young woman opposed to abortion and who desires to have children of her own one day; and a Department of Energy Civilian Nuclear Tech who works at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. [1]

Liberty Counsel has been providing legal assistance to more than 700 service members from the Army, Air Force, Space Force, Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard. Liberty Counsel maintains an internal “Service Member Final Denial List” for service members who have contacted Liberty Counsel and whose final Religious Accommodation Request appeals have been denied. Based on this list alone, the U.S. military will continue to lose highly qualified and experienced personnel. [3]

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Liberty Counsel represents plaintiffs from all branches of the military who were denied religious exemptions from the COVID shot mandate. The military has violated the Constitution and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act with this unlawful COVID shot mandate. The abuse of military heroes is inhumane and unlawful. The Department of Defense acts likes it is above the law. This abuse and unlawful action must end.” [3]

 
The Plaintiffs:

The action in U.S. District Court in Florida is on behalf of two Navy SEALs, a Navy EOD Officer, a Navy Senior Chief Petty Officer, a Navy Chaplain, two Marine Lt. Colonels, two Marine Lance Corporals, an Air Force Major, an Air Force Technical Sergeant, an Army National Guardsman, an Army Colonel, and a Coast Guard Lieutenant. [1] As of March, 30 plaintiffs are listed [4]

The individuals for whom the case was filed are not named, but in a sworn statement on Navy chaplain explained,

“I personally observed (and the Sailors told me in the course of counseling about) tremendous amounts of coercion, bullying, censorship, and intimidation being brought forth by the command to bear against the personnel who expressed objections of any kind to the COVID shot mandates, including religious objections…And clearly, the military has lost more lives to the increase in suicide from 2020-2021 (at least 1,012) than to all of COVID in 2 years (~52), but suicide has not been a focus.” [1]

  • One plaintiff is a U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel who faced immediate and irreparable harm beginning today. Her appeal for religious exemption was denied. Today she was to be added to the Officer Disciplinary Notebook, and her command selection withdrawn, irreparably damaging her career. This event would have begun the process of her ultimate discharge from the Marine Corps.   [5]
  • Another plaintiff, a U.S. Navy Command Surface Warfare Officer, faced immediate discipline on February 3, at which time he would have been removed from command of his ship, irreparably damaging his career because he was denied a religious exemption from the COVID shot. [5]
  • Also under Navy SEAL 1 v. Austin, Liberty Counsel is representing a cadet at the U.S. Air Force Academy who is seeking legal relief after the Colorado Springs-based school ordered him to choose either the COVID-19 vaccination or “voluntary” resignation from the Academy. [6]

The unnamed cadet, according to Liberty Counsel, believes that God has called him to serve in the Air Force – but also holds a sincerely held religious belief that he shouldn’t receive any of the COVID shots because of their connections to abortion. [6]

Gordon Klingenschmitt is a former Navy chaplain who attended the Air Force Academy and runs the Pray In Jesus Name project. He tells AFN

“Cadet X” isn’t the only military cadet taking a stand against the mandate. “I’m told now 16 cadets at West Point and an equal number at the Air Force Academy are in danger of being separated because of their religious views,” he concludes. [6]

 
How this case is different from the Supreme Court Ruling

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a partial stay, that focused solely on deployment, in the case of Navy SEALS 1-26 v. Austin. Although the names of the cases can be confusing, Liberty Counsel does not represent the case on which the Supreme Court ruled last Friday but does represent about 30 plaintiffs from all military branches seeking class certification in Navy SEAL 1 v. Austin. [7]

In its order last Friday, the Supreme Court issued a partial stay of the preliminary injunction in Navy SEALS 1-26 only “insofar as it precludes the Navy from considering respondents’ vaccination status in making deployment, assignment, and other operational decisions.” [7]

In contrast, the preliminary injunction in Liberty Counsel’s case, Navy SEAL 1 v. Austin, enjoins the Department of Defense (DOD) and the respective military branches “(1) from enforcing against Navy Commander and Lieutenant Colonel 2 any order or regulation requiring COVID-19 vaccination and (2) from any adverse or retaliatory action against Navy Commander and Lieutenant Colonel 2 as a result of, arising from, or in conjunction with Navy Commander’s or Lieutenant Colonel 2’s requesting a religious exemption, appealing the denial of a request for a religious exemption, requesting reconsideration of the denial of a religious exemption, or pursuing this action or any other action for relief under RFRA or the First Amendment.” [7]

As Judge Merryday noted, “[t]he operative language of the preliminary injunction is direct and specific,” and “narrowly and specifically protects Navy Commander and Lieutenant Colonel 2 (1) from enforcement of an order to either accept vaccination or undergo discipline, including possible separation from service, and (2) from any adverse action that is retaliatory.” Indeed, “[a]ny interpretation to the contrary is wrong.” The defendants “remain at liberty to issue commands, assignments, orders, and the like in the normal course of business.” The “injunction remains indifferent to that non-retaliatory exercise of command authority.” [7]

This preliminary injunction is more narrow than the Texas preliminary injunction which the Supreme Court considered, as it limits defendants from enforcement of an order to either accept vaccination or undergo discipline (which was not challenged before the Supreme Court or in Liberty Counsel’s case before the Court of Appeals), and from taking retaliatory action on the basis of a RFRA claim. [7]

 

Significance

This is an important case that challenges the Rights of the Individual over the Power of the State

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

The plaintiffs all hold sincere religious beliefs against the COVID shots on the basis that their body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and to defile it is a sin against God. In addition, the plaintiffs do not want to participate directly or indirectly or otherwise be associated with the destruction of human life through abortion by injecting a product that contains or was tested or developed with aborted fetal cell lines. The plaintiffs have all submitted religious exemption requests from a COVID-19 injection which have been unlawfully denied. [8]

The COVID shots cannot be mandatory under the federal Emergency Use Authorization law, and the plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion is protected by the First Amendment. In addition, their free exercise of religion is protected under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Regarding RFRA, the Supreme Court wrote,[8]

“That statute prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion unless it demonstrates that doing so both furthers a compelling governmental interest and represents the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Because RFRA operates as a kind of super statute, displacing the normal operation of other federal laws, it might supersede Title VII’s commands in appropriate cases” (emphasis added).  [8]

 

Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…

 

The Proceedings

(see here for a detailed accounting of the proceedings)

Over the course of several months, the presiding Federal Judge Steven Merryday granted several stays to get vaccinated to the service members. The Judge was also sympathetic to the arguments of the plaintiffs and critical of the DoD’s reasoning. The judge also granted anonymity to 2 plaintiffs [4]

While setting a hearing for February 10, Judge Merryday stated he searches in vain for any justification for the military’s refusal to grant accommodations. He says the DOD is “most unlikely” to meet its burden, and forecasts that he will rule against the government. Judge Merryday wrote, in part: [5]

“The record in this action establishes that the two service members are very likely to prevail on their claim that their respective branch of the military has wrongfully denied a religious exemption from COVID-19 vaccination. The record creates a strong inference that the services are discriminatorily and systematically denying religious exemptions without a meaningful and fair hearing and without the showing required under RFRA (while simultaneously granting medical exemptions and permitting unvaccinated persons to continue in service without adverse consequence). One struggles to imagine a wholesome and lawful explanation for the results evidenced in this record. The military is well aware of the frailty of their arguments in defense of their practices. Those arguments both procedural and substantive, are rejected in an action that is distinctively parallel to this action. U.S. Navy Seals 1–26, et al v. Biden, 4:21-cv-1236-O, Doc. 66, 2022 WL 34443 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2022) (characterizing the military’s review of requests for a religious exemption as “theater” and granting relief to the service member plaintiffs). Rejection on the same or a more encompassing basis is likely in this action (especially if the conduct of the military continues along the present lines).” 

Judge Merryday’s order continues: [5]

“The two moving service members face either (1) a most-likely-unlawful deprivation of their accumulated status and standing in the United States military, as well as prospective advancement and benefits, or (2) deprivation of their constitutional and statutory rights to Free Exercise and the statutory right to receive a religious exemption unless the military can meet the statutory burden of proof, which the military has not and likely cannot. On the other hand, the military faces a trivial, if any, prospect of material injury as a result of permitting the service members continued service under the same terms and conditions and with the same privileges and emoluments as currently prevail, especially because the military permits a large group of unvaccinated persons to serve without adverse consequence…Finally, the military is most likely unable to establish, and certainly has not established, that permitting the relatively small number of RFRA objectors, even if every request for exemption (much less the two at issue in this motion) were sincere and successful, to serve without adverse consequences to their standing and the terms and conditions of their service will adversely affect the public’s interest in the maintenance and readiness of the nation’s military forces. In fact, the public undoubtedly has some considerable interest in maintaining the services of skilled, experienced, highly trained, patriotic, courageous, and esteemed service members, such as the two moving service members, in whom the public has an immense financial investment and who are not, to say the least, readily replaceable.” [5]

 

Judge Merryday pressed the Department of Justice counsel about the fact that the military is not showing that removing service members is the least restrictive means available. Judge Merryday also noted that he has to weigh the adverse impact of removing a highly qualified and skilled service member who is not easily replaceable against the minimal, if any, benefit of a “vaccine” in view of the fact that it is not preventing the transmission of Omicron. He pointed out that the military is now at its highest rate of vaccinated service members and also at the highest rate of COVID cases. With the shot not preventing transmission, “why,” he asked, “cannot a small number of service members remain unvaccinated because of their religious beliefs?” [9]

 

Judge Merryday previously ordered each branch of the military to file a detailed report regarding religious exemptions from the COVID-19 shot every 14 days beginning Friday, January 7, 2022. The documents prove that the military continues to deny religious exemptions while granting medical exemptions. According to the court, after three filings, [10]

“the Navy has denied 81 appeals and granted none, the Marine Corps has denied 119 appeals and granted 3, and the Air Force has denied 443 appeals and granted 1 appeal (and granted 8 initial requests). According to the notice, neither the Army nor the Coast Guard has resolved an appeal.” [10]

 
Witnesses & Experts

On March 10,2022 the court heard several witnesses.

Liberty Counsel presented compelling testimony from the Navy Commander and three military flight surgeons, Lt. Col. Peter Chambers, Lt. Col. Teresa Long and Col. (Ret.) Stewart Tankersley. [3] one of whom was injured by the COVID shots. [3]

In contrast, the Department of Defense (DOD) declined to present witnesses. The Department of Defense counsel refused to produce the Commodore of the Navy to be subjected to cross-examination. [3]

Dr. Long testified in federal court that she was ordered by high-level command not to discuss the controversy over Department of Defense data indicating a massive spike in serious injuries and illnesses among military personnel when the vaccines were rolled out in 2021. [2]

“I have so many soldiers being destroyed by this vaccine. Not a single member of my senior command has discussed my concerns with me,” she said amid tears. “I have nothing to gain and everything to lose by talking about it,”

She added that she is willing to lose her career “because I am watching people get absolutely destroyed.”

She said she regularly has been contacted by military personnel who have been injured by the shots, and most are pilots, who “have to meet one of the highest fitness standards.”

Amid the pressure to get vaccinated, Long described an atmosphere of low morale in which there have been at least two suicides.


The flight surgeon Chambers testified that he was ordered to make sure troops received the shots and was told that religious exemptions would be denied. He said that up to 80% of military personnel have contracted COVID-19 despite having had two shots. However, he said, among the unvaccinated, the infection rate was 15%. Chambers said he has had to delay his plan to retire in 2023 because he developed demyelination of his central nervous system after being vaccinated. [2]

Tankersley, a recently retired flight surgeon, said he has witnessed during the pandemic an unprecedented “suppression of scientific dialogue.” He said the shots are neither safe nor effective, explaining the delivery mechanism of the mRNA vaccines bypasses the natural immune system and creates inflammation that can inhibit the body’s innate immunity. Tankersly said he has treated more than 200 COVID patients with no fatalities using treatments such as ivermectin. Meanwhile, the Defense Department insists that the only way to combat COVID is to force vaccination and get rid of personnel who won’t comply. [2]

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

On September 9, 2021, Joe Biden signed an executive order attempting to force COVID shots on more Americans, including federal employees, all private employers with 100 or more employees, health care workers, educators and even children. [11]

The courts recognize the constitutional protections against these lawless mandates and are striking them down one by one. For example, here’s the various courts’ recent actions: [11]

  • 11-30-21 – Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove (KY) grants preliminary injunction against mandate for federal contractors in KY, OH, TN.
  • 12-7-21 – Judge Stan Baker (GA) grants nationwide injunction against mandate for federal contractors in GA, AL, ID, KS, SC, UT, WV.
  • 12-15-21 Judge Dee Drell grants preliminary injunction regarding contracts and grants with the states of IN, LA, MS.
  • 12-20-21 – Judge David Noce (MO) grants preliminary injunction against mandate for federal contractors in AK, AR, IA, MO, MT, NE, NH, ND, SD, WY.
  • 12-22-21 – Judge Steven Merryday (FL) grants preliminary injunction against mandate for federal contractors in FL.
  • 12-31-21 – Judge James Wesley Hendrix (TX) issues preliminary injunction against Head Start shot mandate in TX.
  • 1-1-22 – Judge Terry A. Doughty (LA) grants preliminary injunction against Head Start mandate in AL, AK, AZ, AR, FL, GA, LA, IN, IA, KS, KY, MS, MO, MT, NE, ND, OH, OK, SC, SD, TN, UT, WV, WY.
  • 1-13-22 – The U.S. Supreme Court (6-3) issues a stay against OSHA mandates. OSHA has now repealed the mandate.
  • 1-21-22 – Judge Jeffrey Brown (TX) grants preliminary injunction against mandate for federal workers nationwide.

 

Decision

 

Media


US Navy Doctor Whistleblower on Vaccine Deaths -Apr 13, 2022

source: odysee\shortXXvids


US Navy Dr Long Testifies to Sen Johnson’s Panel on Vaccine Injuries

source: nicorster


Camp Pendleton Marine joins legal fight for vaccine exemptions

source: ABC 10 News


Back to All Cases