Pandemic Timeline

Judgments, Uncategorized

A case is won against vaccine mandates in Florida

Tags:

The case is Friend v. City of Gainesville, Florida Circuit Court, Alachua County, No. 133500511.

This case does not help everyone.  The argument in this Florida case was based on states rights, which was the real issue in the decision of the 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts case presented to the U.S. Supreme Court.  If your state already has laws against mandatory vaccination, this case will help you; otherwise, you will need to find another strategy to win your case.

The City is playing a game of chicken that risks a catastrophic failure of our infrastructure. I’ve seen internal memorandum surveys and other documentation from in the city suggesting that 60% of city personnel in particular at GRU will either quit, take early retirement, or wait to be terminated instead of taking that shot.

— Jeff Childers

Several months ago, the media began running stories using the 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts case from the U.S. Supreme Court as justification for vaccine mandates.  Jeff Childers says that this is a misunderstanding of the case.  Jeff Childers used Jacobson v. Massachusetts in support of his case against vaccine mandates.  The U.S. Supreme Court said that the U.S. Constitution has nothing in it to support vaccine mandates; therefore, it was necessary to look to the state constitution.

The Massachusetts state constitution had a philosophy of “for the public good” even then that allowed for vaccine mandates.  Massachusetts had a liberal constitution even back then.  The U.S. founding documents do not support a “for the public good” philosophy in the same way, and neither do the constitutions of many states.  Therefore, the case boils down to a states rights issue.  In other words, it is up to the states to decide how they want to manage public health.  There is nothing in Jacobson v. Massachusetts to indicate that the federal government has the right to impose vaccine mandates.  In fact, the case shows quite the opposite.

Further, we now have legislated law that protects us from mandates of drugs still in testing.  The COVID-19 vaccines have not yet completed all testing required of them.  A case could be made that the approval of the Comirnaty vaccine is illegal for this reason.  The mRNA vaccines are classified as gene therapies.  Go check the documents.  It’s in there.  And yet the FDA waived the required gene therapy checklist when it approved the Comirnaty vaccine.  The CDC had to change the definition of “vaccine” so that the mRNA vaccines would fit it; they still might not fit the definition.

Another factor in Jacobson v. Massachusetts is that it dealt with a small pox vaccine that had been in use for many decades and that had a known safety record.  An argument of “for the public good” was valid for the small pox vaccine.  Also, the vaccine mandate law in question in the Supreme Court case only imposed the mandate during outbreaks.

Even though the Comirnaty vaccine is legally approved now, it is still in testing and thus has a still unknown safety record, especially for the long term.  Frankly, it isn’t looking good for the long term, if we go by Israel’s and England’s numbers.  Far from having a record of safety as does the small pox vaccine, the COVID-19 vaccines have shown themselves to be quite dangerous from Day 1 of the rollout.  In conservative numbers, for every 1 that the COVID-19 vaccines might save, 2 will die from the vaccines themselves.  Other calculations show that the number of people who will die from the vaccines to save one life is much higher.  There is nothing supporting public health in numbers like these.  It seems to me that an argument of “for the public good” would not hold up for these vaccines.  Besides, if the government really cared about public health, they would be giving out ivermectin, not trying to smear it.

One could perhaps use the anti-life nature of these specific vaccines to make a legal argument against mandates of these specific vaccines based on the Declaration of Independence, since this document is held to be a founding document in the United States.  The Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Stiftung Corona Ausschuss has determined that the COVID-19 vaccines have been found to be so harmful and so questionable in their composition that administering them is a crime against humanity, and inoculation with these so-called vaccines must be halted altogether.  This is a far different situation than existed with the small pox vaccine case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts.  Had the COVID-19 vaccines been the subject of the Jacobson v. Massachusetts case instead of the small pox vaccine, the case would have been argued much differently and may have had a different outcome.  No one could have made a successful case of “for the public good” in that challenge based on what we know now, especially considering that not only do the so-called vaccines not prevent spread, but the promised reduction of symptoms in a vaccinated carrier may prevent them from realizing that they are infectious and thus spreading the disease.

Jeff Childers made this concluding comment in his interview with Stew Peters:

What I want to tell your folks is that these cases can win.  The template is very simple.  It is unconstitutional.  They don’t own your body.  They’re trying to treat our bodies like property.  A farmer has a herd of cattle, and nobody cares what that farmer injects in those cows because they’re his property.  And back in 1700, they owned people, and you could inject into those people that you owned anything that you wanted.  But we fought a bloody civil war in this country to end that.  And so your body is your body, and it’s nobody else’s.  It’s not the government’s for sure because what’s the difference between a slave owner and a slave and a free citizen who is a citizen of a government?*  If you can’t do with your body what you want to do with it, then you have no rights left.  You’re just a slave.

* Our United States Constitution tells us that the government belongs to the people, not the other way around.

Following this recent success, Jeff Childers is now forming a collaboration with other attorneys who want to fight COVID mandates.

Sources:

Related:

See also, on this site:

Comments are closed.