One step closer - Children’s Health Defense presents case to Appeals Court that might have national AND GLOBAL implications for “vaccine” mandates of experimental injections

A few weeks ago, I posted this article covering the heroic battle by Children’s Health Defense to strike down Rutgers University’s “vaccine” mandate.

(100) Is “Informed Consent” a legal right? - by Peter Halligan (substack.com)

A US Court of Appeals has now heard the appeal against a lower court’s decision to uphold the mandate and will make its decision in the next few months (or even weeks, hopefully!)

From here:

Appeals Court Hears Arguments Challenging Rutgers University COVID Vaccine Mandate in Case That Could Set National Precedent • Children's Health Defense (childrenshealthdefense.org)

“A U.S. Court of Appeals on Tuesday heard arguments in an appeal challenging the constitutionality of Rutgers University’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for students.”

“During Tuesday’s hearing before a three-judge panel for the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia, attorney Julio C. Gomez argued Rutgers’ policy is unconstitutional because COVID-19 vaccines are experimental and administered under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), and because students had the right to refuse an unwanted and potentially unsafe medical procedure.

“This appeal raises a very important question: whether a college or a university in New Jersey has the legal authority during a public health emergency to coerce the student’s consent to a highly invasive injection of a yet to be fully investigated vaccine,” Gomez told The Defender.”

It is irksome that in law, the mRNA injections are referred to as “vaccines”, they are NOT “vaccines”, no-one has been “vaccinated”. The injections modify genes with deadly spike proteins (plus toxic lipid nano-particles and PEG) directly or instruct the body to manufacture toxic and deadly spike proteins that have been shown to be contaminated with DNA and bacteria via shoddy manufacturing and quality control processes.

It beggars belief that the injection of poisonous components is considered a “vaccine”. In any event, the “vaccines” FAILED clinical trials, FAILED post marketing authorization, FAILED adverse events reporting ratios and have FAILED to prevent infection. transmission, hospitalization and death.

There are other issues to consider, notably, Rutgers:

·        did not (initially) extend the mandate to staff and faculty,0

·        forced the mandate on remote students not on campus,

·        was actually conducting clinical trials for “vaccine” manufacturers – with full knowledge of adverse events from those trials –

·        knows full well that the “vaccines” do not prevent infection or transmission, so protect no-one

·        did not have the ability to exercise good faith in issuing the mandate “because it didn’t have the information to make that kind of an assessment,” Gomez said.

·        used coercion to enforce an illegal mandate

·        did not inform students that they had the right to refuse an unwanted and potentially unsafe medical procedure

Rutgers also violated the “unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine”:

Overview of Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Which states:

“.. the basic principle is that the government normally may not require a person, as a condition of receiving a public benefit, to relinquish a constitutional right—most notably, by speaking or refraining from speaking on a certain subject.⁴.⁵

If the three judge panel finds in favour of the plaintiffs represented by Children’s Health Defense, the decision can be applied to ALL “vaccine” mandates.

Remember this from January 2023? A previous victory for Children’s Health Defense and all of mankind!

(100) Liberation for NY State Healthcare Workers! Children’s Health Defence Defeats COVID Mandate! C19 mRNA mandate remains “Arbitrary and Capricious”. (substack.com)

“NY State (NYS) Supreme Court Judge Gerard Neri held that the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers is now “null, void, and of no effect.” The court held that the NYS Dept. of Health lacked the authority to impose such a mandate as this power is reserved to the state legislature. Furthermore, the court found that the mandate was “arbitrary and capricious” as COVID-19 vaccines do not stop transmission, vitiating any rational basis for a mandate.!”

Now, that case was appealed by NY State – I think the appeal was later dropped and is now moot in any case, but I could be mistaken.

Onwards

Please upgrade to paid, or donate a coffee (I drink a lot of coffee) - “God Bless You!” if you can’t or don’t want to contribute. Coffee donations here: https://ko-fi.com/peterhalligan  Buying just one Ko-Fi a week  for $3 is 50 bucks more than an annual $100 subscription!