The Most Amazing Thing Just Happened - we can now prove by LEGAL PRECEDENT COVID jab is a medical treatment, not a vaccine.
We can pursue anyone LEGALLY now for prescribing a medical treatment, by pretending it to be a vaccine, when 9th Circuit Court Rules COVID-19 mRNA Injections Are Not Legally Vaccines
Legal Precedent - 9th Circuit Court Rules COVID-19 mRNA Injections Are Not Legally Vaccines
"The right to refuse unwanted medical treatment is entirely consistent with this Nation’s history and constitutional traditions and the case merits are sufficient to invoke that fundamental right."
Karen Kingston
Jun 8
June 7, 2024: The 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals just ruled in favor of protecting individual human rights and bodily sovereignty of teachers and other staff of the Los Angeles School Unified District’s (LAUSD), reversing a lower court’s dismissal of their case against the LA County’s School District vaccine mandate for employees.
Announcing this huge win on behalf of their clients, Health Freedom Defense Fund issued a press release, stating that the case was won;
“On the merits, the majority ruled that the district court had misapplied the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts when it dismissed LAUSD’s lawsuit on grounds that the mandate was rationally related to a legitimate state interest. In Jacobson, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a smallpox vaccination mandate because it related to “preventing the spread” of smallpox.
The majority, however, noted that HFDF had alleged in the lawsuit that the COVID jabs are not “traditional” vaccines because they do not prevent the spread of COVID-19 but only purport to mitigate COVID symptoms in the recipient. This, HFDF had alleged in its complaint, makes the COVID jab a medical treatment, not a vaccine.
The court recognized that mitigating symptoms rather than preventing the spread of disease “distinguishes Jacobson, thus presenting a different government interest.” Based on this reasoning, the majority disapproved the trial court’s contention that, even if the jabs do not prevent the spread, “Jacobson still dictates that the vaccine mandate is subject to, and survives, the rational basis test.”
The court held that “[t]his misapplies Jacobson,” which “did not involve a claim in which the compelled vaccine was ‘designed to reduce symptoms in the infected vaccine recipient rather than to prevent transmission and infection.”’ Jacobson does not, the majority concluded, extend to “forced medical treatment” for the benefit of the recipient.”
When HFDF asked the court to opine as to whether or not the CDC’s claim that the COVID-19 vaccines were ‘safe and effective’, the court responded with the rhetorical question, “safe and effective for what?”
Legal Precedent for U.S. Citizens to Deny Medical Treatment
Per the HFDF press release, “Judge Collins wrote that the district court “further erred by failing to realize that [HFDF’s] allegations directly implicate a distinct and more recent line of Supreme Court authority” for the proposition that “a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment[.]” Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Washington v. Glucksberg, Judge Collins noted that the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment is “entirely consistent with this Nation’s history and constitutional traditions,” and that HFDF’s allegations in this case “are sufficient to invoke that fundamental right.”
The Kingston Report