HFDF Wins Appeal in Ninth Circuit

EMF does not buy into the fear hysteria of COVID-19,
nor agree with the agenda of mandatory mRNA vaccinations.
User avatar
David McCarthy
Site Admin
Posts: 2906
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:09 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

HFDF Wins Appeal in Ninth Circuit

Unread post by David McCarthy »

Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF), California Educators for Medical Freedom, and individual plaintiffs have won their appeal in the Ninth Circuit on LAUSD’s Employee Covid Vaccination Mandate.

Health Freedom Defense Fund et. al, led by the exceptional legal team of John Howard and Scott Street at JW Howard Attorneys, have won a significant victory in the Ninth Circuit, which reversed dismissal of their lawsuit challenging the Los Angeles Unified School District’s (“LAUSD”) mandatory vaccination policy for all employees.

Reversing the decision of the Central District of California in Los Angeles, the Ninth Circuit majority held that, first, the case was not mooted by LAUSD’s rescission of the mandate after oral argument last September, 2023. The majority called out LAUSD’s gamesmanship for what it was – a bald-faced attempt at avoiding an adverse ruling by trying to create an issue of mootness.

Unfortunately for LAUSD, they had already done this once in the trial court. Applying the voluntary cessation doctrine, the majority doubted LAUSD’s sincerity in rescinding the mandate immediately after an unfavorable oral argument in September of last year.

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 HFDF’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.

The court declined to give any deference to pronouncements by the CDC that the “COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.” As the court asked rhetorically, “safe and effective” for what? The majority pointed to HFDF’s allegation that CDC had changed the definition of “vaccine” in September 2021, striking the word “immunity” from that definition. The court also noted HFDF’s citations to CDC statements that the vaccines do not prevent transmission, and that natural immunity is superior to the vaccines.

In a separate concurrence, 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.”

HFDF president, Leslie Manookian stated,

“The Ninth Circuit ruling today demonstrates that the court saw through LAUSD’s monkey business, and in so doing, it made clear that American’s cherished rights to self determination, including the sacred right of bodily autonomy in matters of health, are not negotiable. This is a great triumph for the truth, decency, and what is right.”

https://healthfreedomdefense.org/huge-l ... m=25-06-22
Recent developments are shedding light on the truths we've been advocating for from the beginning—and they have reached mainstream media.

In the U.S., the 9th Circuit Court recently ruled in favour of the Health Freedom Defense Fund.

This landmark decision, written by Judge Ryan D. Nelson, recognises the fundamental right to refuse medical treatment and challenges the legitimacy of covid-19 "vaccination" mandates.

The court stated the injection was 'designed to reduce symptoms in the infected recipient rather than prevent transmission and infection.'

Of course, we all know the long-standing definition of a vaccine as something that prevents infection from occurring and thus prevents spread to others. But the court found the covid injection did neither of these things. Read the entire outcome here (PDF, 33 pages).

This is remarkable because the 9th Circuit is known for its liberal leanings and has been a central figure in many landmark cases. Its decisions often precede national policies and legal interpretations for the wider United States.

Meanwhile in the U.S., Dr. Anthony Fauci is still under investigation, and Kansas has filed a lawsuit against Pfizer, accusing the company of misleading the public about their injections.

Closer to home, Australia's mainstream media outlet Sky News Power Hour featured an opinion on news.com.au seeking an apology for the injection rollout and mandates.
Caleb Bond: Major apology millions of Aussies deserve

SkyNews.com.au columnist Caleb Bond succinctly states that "Mounting evidence shows the vaccines were rushed, less effective than you'd expect of a jab, and—in some cases—dangerous."

All this comes after AstraZeneca's decision last month to withdraw its covid-19 injection permanently from global markets amid legal controversies and acknowledgement of potential side effects in the UK.

While citing a sales decline as the reason, the sheer number of 14 million AstraZeneca shots given in Australia alone is concerning when considering the impact of potential ongoing adverse effects.

AstraZeneca's retreat from the covid-19 "vaccination" scene seems like a strategic step to dodge the ensuing blame game as health concerns worldwide escalate.

Last month a study in Seoul, South Korea, published in QJM Journal of Medicine, identified a higher occurrence of mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease in injected individuals—notably more prevalent among those who received mRNA covid shots like Pfizer's and Moderna's.

These advancements represent a notable shift for mainstream media, big pharma, and government authorities. They are gradually acknowledging the significant misinformation and resulting harm that coerced strict public compliance post-2020.

What we were told was an advanced safe intervention was, in fact, an experimental gene therapy. NZDSOS had voiced this from the start.

To ensure our health and sovereignty, it's crucial that more people are aware of the deception.

This knowledge empowers us to make collective and personal choices that can have a significant impact. Clearly, as long as we continue to question and to hold authorities accountable, the truth behind their corruption will keep surfacing. This offence cannot be ignored or overlooked.

However, in New Zealand, we still have a long way to go to see any level of exposure of wrongdoing, with our government, bureaucrats, regulators, and health professionals remaining silent.

We must keep the pressure on the New Zealand Government for a proper public inquiry. Despite NZDSOS' efforts and many others, we are still awaiting a response from our authorities about their covid-19 inquiry. We cannot relent now.

Let's use our collective power and persistence to stand together and fight for the truth by putting scrutiny on our government. If other countries can do it and are starting to see results, we can too!

Find and Write Your MP about Your Concerns For a Proper Inquiry and to Pause the Covid-19 Injections, Pending a Full Investigation

Change is on the horizon, and our actions today will shape a better future for all.

In solidarity,
Anna Petley, Website Manager, NZDSOS

Anna Petley

NZDSOS Media Team

On Behalf of NZ Doctors Speaking Out With Science (@NZDSOS)

P.S. If you're extra keen to take action this week, please check out this petition to stop the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Act 2023 due to concerns about government overreach and loss of privacy, which will come into force on July 1, 2024—unless we do something. We'll have more info about that soon so stay tuned!
Why become an ongoing contributor to NZDSOS?
But he has nothing on at all, cried at last the whole people....
Post Reply

Return to “Covid 19 Pandemic - mRNA Vaccine Safety - Lockdowns”