AgTalk Home
AgTalk Home
Search Forums | Classifieds (38) | Skins | Language
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )

Fired for refusing c 19 jab
View previous thread :: View next thread
   Forums List -> AgTalk CafeMessage format
 
C&B
Posted 6/11/2021 13:01 (#9053584 - in reply to #9053469)
Subject: RE: Fired for refusing c 19 jab


WCOH
They did sue the government over experimental mandated shots and won.
It seems workers and college students have a case here. It needs to work its way to the SC. Quickly.

[4] December 22, 2003

[5] JOHN DOE #1, ET AL, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
DONALD H. RUMSFELD, ET AL DEFENDANTS.

[6] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan United States District Judge

[7] MEMORANDUM OPINION

[8] Plaintiffs, members of the active duty and selected National Guardsmen components of the Armed Forces as well as civilian contract employees of the Department of Defense ("DoD") who have submitted or have been instructed to submit to anthrax vaccinations without their consent pursuant to the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program ("AVIP"), commenced this action against the Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld), the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Tommy Thompson), and the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (Mark McClellan).

[9] Because plaintiffs maintain that Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed ("AVA") is an experimental drug unlicensed for its present use and that the AVIP violates federal law (10 U.S.C. § 1107), a Presidential Executive Order (Executive Order 13139), and the DoD's own regulations (DoD Directive 6200.2), plaintiffs ask that in the absence of a presidential waiver the Court enjoin the DoD from inoculating them without their informed consent. Plaintiffs allege three causes of action against defendants: (1) violation of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") by defendant DoD based on the DoD's failure to follow federal law, a presidential executive order, and DoD directive with respect to its AVIP; (2) violation of the APA by defendant DoD for its intent to inoculate plaintiffs with an unlicensed drug that is unapproved for its intended use; and (3) violation of the APA by the defendants' alteration of the licensed Federal Drug Administration ("FDA") approved schedule of vaccination which rendered AVA a drug unapproved for its intended use.*fn1

Edited by C&B 6/11/2021 13:18
Top of the page Bottom of the page


Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread

(Delete cookies)