Vaccine Mandate Case: Supreme Court

Vaccine Mandate Case: Supreme Court

Vaccine Mandate Case: Supreme Court

Re: the Legality of Vaccine Mandates

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: May 2, 2022 (decided)
  • Location: India
  • Court: Supreme Court
  • Case #:
  • Petitioner: Dr.Jacaob Puliyel
  • Petitioner’s Lawyer: Prashant Bhushan
  • Respondent: Union & State Governments of Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra & Tamil Nadu
  • Trial Type: Supreme Court
  • Justices: L Nageswara Rao & BR Gavai
  • Status: Decided
  • Verdict: for the Petitioner


*updated May 8, 2022

 

Background

a PIL filed by Dr.Jacaob Puliyel, challenging the vaccine mandates and seeking publication of the clinical trial and adverse events of vaccination. [1]

Dr. Jacob Puliyel, a former member of the National Technical Advisory Group of Immunization had approached the Apex Court assailing the constitutional validity of the vaccine mandates imposed by States, in particular, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu. He had sought the indulgence of the Court to issue directions to the concerned authorities to disclose the data pertaining to clinical trials of the COVID-19 vaccines administered to adults as well as children in India, as per the requirement of International Medical norms. The petitioner also impelled the Court to revamp the Adverse Events Following Immunization Reporting System which he alleged was opaque, flawed and unknown to the public at large. [1]

Petitioner Jacob Puliyal has said that even though the central government is saying that vaccination is optional, it is not mandatory, but in states like Delhi, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, it has become mandatory.  [2]

lawyer Prashant Bhushan had said that when the central government has said on many occasions, in response to statements and RTI that vaccination is not compulsory but optional, then in many states to open a shop, enter a shop or establishment. Vaccination certificates are sought on occasions such as entry of employees and people working there, walking on the streets, entering an educational institution? The petitioner, in his petition, has also referred to the circulars issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi on October 8 last year, November 8 in Madhya Pradesh, November 27 in Maharashtra and November 18 in Tamil Nadu and clearly written guidelines in which vaccination should be done. Essential restrictions have been imposed. [2]

At the same time, the Central Government opposed the petition to give the data of the clinical trial of Corona vaccine and not to force the vaccine. In the Supreme Court, the central government had said that such petitions filed for the vested interest of some people can affect the vaccination process. Even an oral comment of the court can be harmful. [2]

The Center told the Supreme Court that till November 24, 2021, one billion 19 crore 38 lakh 44 thousand 741 doses of corona vaccine have been given. Out of these, 2116 cases of adverse event following immunization i.e. AEFI have been registered so far. A report of rapid review and analysis has been completed for 495 (463 Coveshield and 32 Covaxin). Another report of 1356 cases (1236 Covishield, 118 Covaxin and 2 Sputnik) of severe AEFI cases (including 495 cases already analyzed) has been submitted to NEGVAC. [2]

The remaining cases are under rapid review and analysis and will be completed soon. On behalf of the Central Government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had said that this petition should not be heard. This may increase hesitation for the vaccine. The country has come out of it with great difficulty. [2]

Justice Nageswara Rao had said that that is why we said that if you have some specific facts, then they should be heard. We also do not want that there should be any problem regarding vaccination. [2]

In fact, on 9 August 2021, the Supreme Court had issued a notice to the Central Government on the petition not to compel people to apply the vaccine and make the trial data public. However, the Supreme Court refused to impose an interim stay on forcing the vaccine to be administered. Justice L Nageswara Rao said that 50 crore people in the country have been vaccinated. The WHO has also said that vaccine hesitancy has done a lot of damage. [2]

Lawyer Prashant Bhushan had said that according to the sero report, 2/3 people have been infected with Covid. In such a situation, the anti body is more effective than the corona vaccine. Now a policy has been made that if the vaccine is not applied then one cannot travel. Many restrictions have been imposed. The government is not making clinical data public. Since the vaccine is voluntary, then if someone does not get the vaccine, then he should not be denied any facility. The petitioner’s lawyer Prashant Bhushan has filed an application asking that the clinical trial of the vaccine as well as the data regarding the adverse effect of the vaccine be made public. [2]

 

India made headlines last year when it refused to offer a liability shield to Pfizer or Moderna, unlike countries such as Canada — which still has a federal vaccine mandate and a ban on the unvaccinated for travel. As such, no contract was signed between India’s authorities and these vaccine manufacturers. Instead, India relied on their own domestically produced vaccines. [3]

Pfizer infamously wanted to hide their COVID trial-related data for seventy-five years but was forced by a court order to release it. As their data dumps are being made publicly available bit by bit, public outrage continues to grow. [3]

 

 

Significance

This case is the first in the Supreme Court to decide on the legality of Vaccine Mandates

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

Vaccine Mandates

The sheet anchor of Advocate, Mr. Prashant Bhushan’s argument against the vaccine mandates was that in the absence of clinical trial data people were restrained from providing informed consent and the same impinged on the right to self-determination protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Relying on K Puttaswamy v. UOI (2017) 10 SCC 1 and Common Cause v. UOI (2018) 5 SCC1, he emphasised that informed consent is necessary for medical procedures and bodily integrity is an integral part of the right to privacy. The Court was apprised that though the Government of India had indicated that vaccines are to be administered voluntarily, the States have imposed mandated restricting movement, denying essential services and curbing the right to livelihood in derogation of Articles 19 and 21. Mr. Bhushan argued that when there exists scientific evidence to substantiate the claims that nature immunity is better than vaccine-immunity; vaccination does not prevent from getting infected or transmitting; vaccines are ineffective in preventing new variants; vaccines have serious adverse effects; long-effects of the vaccine are unknown, mandating vaccination is unconstitutional. [1]

“For any vaccine to be mandated, the public health rationale underlying such a policy must be based essentially on efficacy and safety of vaccination and prevention of transmission of the disease“, Mr. Bhushan submitted. [1]

He referred to the decision of the UK Parliamentary Committee; judgement of the High Court of New Zealand in Yardley v. Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety [2022] NZHC 291 and orders of Gujarat High Court and Meghalaya High Court sticking down vaccine mandates. [1]

 
Non-Disclosure of data

Mr. Bhushan submitted that the segregated data of clinical trials of vaccines must be disclosed through peer reviewed scientific journals. The disclosure would have a significant impact on determining the adverse effects of the vaccines. The significance of disclosure was asserted by placing reliance on the Nuremberg Code and Report Nos. 59 (2012) and 66 (2013) of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare. [1]

He informed the Court that an RTI Application was filed enquiring whether the Subject Expert Committee had looked at the raw days and/or discussed it. Responding to the same, the Central Drugs Control Standard Organisation stated that the brief of interim clinical trial results along with Subject Expert Committee’s recommendations was publicly available on CDSCO website. Dissatisfied with the response, an appeal was filed and the First Appellate Authority refused to reveal any data stating that the manufacturers had refused to disclose data publicly. [1]

 
Adverse Effect Following Immunization Reporting System

Mr. Bhushan submitted that besides it being an opaque and flawed system, there was a lack of public awareness about the same. [1]

 
Children’s Vaccine Mandate

Citing articles published in scientific journals, Mr. Bhushan argued that the overall risk from COVID-19 for children being remarkably low, it is not reasonable to vaccinate them, that too, without providing an opportunity to the parents to provide informed consent [1]

 
Rebuttal Arguments of the petitioner

Mr. Bhushan contended that the non-disclosure of trial data is preventing independent experts from making their own determinations. He stressed upon the petitioner’s plea that disclosure would permit the independent experts to look into the veracity of the claims of the manufacturers. In this regard, he referred to a United States District Court judgment, wherein the regulatory body was directed to disclose all the information pertaining to the Pfizer vaccine. [1]

He submitted that even considering the Government’s submission on privacy of the patients who participated in the trials, it ought to have made available segregated data. He emphasised that the assertion, vaccines significantly reduce the risk of transmitting the disease, had to be established by the Government by adducing evidence. Mr. Bhushan argued that by merely stating there exists a robust system for granting approval, it cannot be taken outside the ambit of judicial scrutiny. Mr. Bhushan asserted that the information available on the website pertains only to recommendations made by the expert bodies, but does not indicate the material on the basis of which such recommendations were made. [1]

With respect to the adverse reporting system, he pointed out that only the vaccinator can report such effects; the public at large have no knowledge about the reporting system and only known adverse effects can be reported. [1]

 

Defendant’s Argument

Argument from State Government of the Union Government

Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta at the outset, had questioned the bona fides of the petitioner. He contended that by way of a Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner cannot seek raw data of the clinical trial of the COVID-19 vaccines, merely to satisfy his curiosity, nor can he sit in judgment of the wisdom of domain experts. He refuted the claim of serious adverse effects. According to the official record till 13.03.2022, 1,80,13,23,547 doses had been administered and 77314 people or 0.004% of the vaccinated population had been adversely affected. Refuting the submissions made by Mr. Bhushan, alleging irregularities in the vaccine approval process, he took the Court through the statutory framework and submitted that the same had been adhered to while granting approval. Referring to the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and Disaster Management Act, 2005, he demonstrated the wide ambit of power entrusted upon the Central Government to take measures during a pandemic. [1]

Mr. Mehta vehemently opposed the claim of the petitioner that there was a lack of mechanism for addressing adverse effects from immunization. On the issue of disclosure of clinical trial data, it was asserted that the same was in the teeth of confidentiality provisions. It was highlighted that the Helsinki Declaration and the WHO statement relied upon by the petitioner to seek raw clinical trial data only refers to the obligation to disclose final results, findings and outcomes which have already been disclosed.

Addressing the issue of children’s vaccine mandate, it was argued that evidence provided by the petitioner is based on mRNA vaccine, whereas the vaccine being administered in India was inactivated virus vaccines. It was further pointed out that for pediatric vaccines there is a statutory regime in place, which is being strictly followed. [1]

Mr. Mehta referred to a catena of foreign judgments with respect to vaccination in general, and the vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic in particular to indicate that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to other factors, like legitimate aim; and the necessity to achieve that aim.

Moreover he argued that the vaccine mandate is a matter of policy; a matter of scientific adjudication and the scope of judicial review in policy matters, especially when the executive decision is based on expert opinion, is limited. [1]

 

Argument from State Government of Tamil Nadu

Appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, its Additional Advocate General, Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari submitted that the State Government has exercised power under Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939 and the Disaster Management Act, 2005 to mandate vaccination for accessing public spaces. The mandate was justified, broadly on three grounds : [1]

  1. It prevents mutation

  2. Unvaccinated people causes health risk and

  3. Economic impact.

 

Argument from State Government of Maharashtra

Advocate, Mr. Rahul Chitnis, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, submitted that the Government has mandated vaccination to enter shops, malls etc., and also to avail public transportation, but the same would pass the test of proportionality as expounded by the Apex Court in Modern Dental College And Research Centre And Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh. [1]

 
Argument from State Government of Madhya Pradesh

The Counsel adopted the submissions made by the Solicitor General about the need to balance rights. It was also clarified that the Government did not intend to make vaccines mandatory to avail ration. On the contrary, the purpose of the notification was to encourage individuals to get vaccinated. [1]

 
Argument from the Vaccine Manufacturers

Senior Advocate, Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, appearing for Bharat Biotech, controverted Mr. Bhushan’s argument that Phase III Trial of the vaccine has not been published. Moreover, it was emphasised that WHO guidelines referred to by the petitioner do not mandate the disclosure of the primary data and only the analysis of the data. Reliance was placed on Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act which exempts the disclosure of information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party. The Counsel appearing for SII also opposed the petitioner’s plea for disclosure. [1]

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

decision of the UK Parliamentary Committee; judgement of the High Court of New Zealand in Yardley v. Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety [2022] NZHC 291 and orders of Gujarat High Court and Meghalaya High Court sticking down vaccine mandates. [1]

 

Decision

The Supreme Court on Monday held that no individual can be forced to get vaccinated and the right to bodily integrity of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution include the right to refuse vaccinate. [1]

The Court also held that the vaccine mandates imposed by various state governments and other authorities in the context of COVID-19 pandemic are “not proportionate. The Court held so as no substantial data has been produced on record to show that the risk of transmission of COVID-19 virus from the unvaccinated persons are higher than from vaccinated persons. [1]

The Government is entitled to impose restrictions on individual rights in public health interests, but the restrictions should meet the 3-fold requirement legality, need and proportionality laid down by the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy judgment. [1]

“No data has been provided by the Union of India or States before us controverting the material placed by petitioner which indicates that the risk of tranmission by unvaccinated is at par with vaccinated.In light of this the vaccine mandates cannot be said to be proportionate till the infection rate remains low and new development of research emergence which justifies the mandate”, the Court stated. [1]

Therefore, the Court suggested that all authorities, including private institutions and educational institutions, should review the restrictions on the unvaccinated. The Court however clarified that this direction is confined to the present context of the COVID pandemic situation. It further clarified that it does not extend to any other directions on COVID-19 appropriate behaviour issued by the authorities. [1]

 
Union’s vaccine policy not unreasonable or arbitrary.

The Court also held that the policy of the Union Governemnt on COVID-19 vaccination policy is reasonable. It also held that the clinical trial data of the vaccines have been published in accordance with the relevant norms. The material provided by the Union of India does not support the conclusion that emergency use approval has been granted in haste. [1]

 
Publish reports on Adverse Events

The Court also directed the Union of India to publish reports on Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) from public and doctors on a publicly accessible system without compromising data of the individuals who are reporting the same. [1]

 
Vaccination for children approved

Regarding vaccine for children, the Court said that it is not possible for us to second guess the opinion of experts and the vaccination indeed follows the global standards and practices. [1]

“On pediatric vaccine, it is in tune with international standards. We direct the Union of India to make sure the key findings of the stages of trial already approved for children be made public at the earliest”, the Court said. [1]

The Court rejected the arguments against the maintainability of the writ petition. Though executive has wide latitude in policy matters, it does not bar the Courts from scrutinizing if the policy is beyond the pale of arbitrariness.

 

Aftermath

…More information is needed…

 


Further Research

Court Documents:
  • Read the Court Ruling
In the news:

On Corona Cases

 

Media


Supreme Court of India rules against vaccine mandates

source: RebelNews


Yohan Tengra: India Supreme Court Stops C19 Vaccine Mandates

source: WorldCouncilForHealth


Supreme Court Upholds Individual’s Right Against Forcible Vaccination

source: NDTV


Pfizer Vaccine Data Analyzed

source: canadiancovidcarealliance.org


12 yr old Vaccine Trial Victim, Maddie

source: shortXXvids


source: …

 

References


 

Keyword

Adverse, Adverse Events Following Immunisation, AEFI, Bharat Biotech, Bhushan, constitution, Delhi, Disaster Management Act, Effects, Epidemic Diseases Act, India, informed consent, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Mehta, Nuremberg Code, Puliyel, Reporting, Reporting System, Side, Supreme Court, System, Tamil Nadu, Unconstitutional, Vaccine Mandate 


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

 

Arrest-Bruchet

Arrest-Bruchet

Arrest: Dr. Bruchet

Re: the persecution of a Doctor who dared to exercise his Right to Free Speech & Resistance to challenge the government position on the safety & effectiveness of Covid Vaccines

 

Back to All Cases

In December 2021, Canadian Doctor Bruchet was sentenced to a Psych ward for 25 days

On December 8, Dr. Bruchet had an argument with a tenant over loud music in his apartment building (a relatively common occurrence). It is unclear whether the tenant reported him as a candidate for the mental health act or someone else. Suddenly, three RCMP squad cars and six RCMP officers descended on Dr. Bruchet and hauled him off in handcuffs for a “psych evaluation.”

The question remains: was Dr. Bruchet unlawfully detained because he exposed the connection of stillbirths to the Covid vaccines? Or because he argued with his tenant over loud music? Or was Dr. Bruchet’s age a convenient excuse? “Dr. Mel,” as he is affectionately known, practiced medicine for many years in British Columbia.


Dr Bruchet Discusses his Detention, Open Warrant & more

source: odysee\longXXvids


 

Keywords

Arrest, British Columbia, Bruchet, Canada, constitution, Doctor, evidence, Fake, False, free speech, frontal lobe dementia, Hope Center, Hospital, Judicial Notice, Lions Gate, mania, Melvin, Misinformation, Nagase, News, opinion, Pregnant, Psych ward, Psychiatric, RCMP, Right to Resist, side effects, Stillbirths, unlawful, Vaccine, Vancouver, Women


Back to All Cases