Preliminary Injunction to Halt Mandatory Flu Vaccination in the U.S. ?

truth seeker

The Living Force
[edit]

Hi all, I decided to delete this post because the editors at Natural News found the article to be factually incorrect. I apologize for the inconvenience.


ADMIN NOTE: You could have left the article, changed the subject field, and added a note at the top. It's always useful to have examples of "factually incorrect" articles to study. I changed the subject field accordingly.
 
Re: Preliminary Injunction to Halt Mandatory Flu Vaccination in the U.S. Has Been Is

Those little smilies are hilarious!

Hopefully people working to get out accurate info will put a wrench in the works.
 
Re: Preliminary Injunction to Halt Mandatory Flu Vaccination in the U.S. Has Been Is

truth seeker said:
Those little smilies are hilarious!

Hopefully people working to get out accurate info will put a wrench in the works.

Unfortunately, it appears the information in this article was fabricated. There's now an editor's note at the top:

Editor's Note: It has come to our attention that the following article is factually incorrect. It was written by a contributing writer, then approved by an in-house editor who did not catch the significant errors in this article. As a result of these significant errors, and due to our commitment to publishing only true and accurate information to the best of our ability, we have made an editorial decision to reject further articles from this author. NaturalNews deeply regrets this unintentional error, and we are brainstorming new ways to put in place tighter fact-checking oversight so that the same mistake does not happen again in the future. We thank all those who have brought this important matter to our attention, and we pledge to increase our efforts to reject stories that contain factual inaccuracies. We only include the full text of the story below so that readers may reference what the original article incorrectly stated, even though we now know the article is factually incorrect. Thank you, - Mike Adams, editor of NaturalNews
 
Re: Preliminary Injunction to Halt Mandatory Flu Vaccination in the U.S. Has Been Is

Gotnoscript said:
truth seeker said:
Those little smilies are hilarious!

Hopefully people working to get out accurate info will put a wrench in the works.

Unfortunately, it appears the information in this article was fabricated. There's now an editor's note at the top:

Editor's Note: It has come to our attention that the following article is factually incorrect. It was written by a contributing writer, then approved by an in-house editor who did not catch the significant errors in this article. As a result of these significant errors, and due to our commitment to publishing only true and accurate information to the best of our ability, we have made an editorial decision to reject further articles from this author. NaturalNews deeply regrets this unintentional error, and we are brainstorming new ways to put in place tighter fact-checking oversight so that the same mistake does not happen again in the future. We thank all those who have brought this important matter to our attention, and we pledge to increase our efforts to reject stories that contain factual inaccuracies. We only include the full text of the story below so that readers may reference what the original article incorrectly stated, even though we now know the article is factually incorrect. Thank you, - Mike Adams, editor of NaturalNews

Oh no! Thanks for telling me Gotnoscript. I wonder if I can delete this post?
 
Hi truth seeker. I read the article when you posted, however, now I'd like to know what was meant by "factually incorrect". Do you know what the errors were? Is there a URL to the newly disclaimed article?
Thanks.
 
Buddy said:
Hi truth seeker. I read the article when you posted, however, now I'd like to know what was meant by "factually incorrect". Do you know what the errors were?

I took it to mean that their was not, in fact, a preliminary injunction to halt vaccinations.
 
Pinkerton said:
I took it to mean that their was not, in fact, a preliminary injunction to halt vaccinations.

The entire story was false? Ok, I thought maybe just a few details were concerned. I had my doubts about how long that would last (assuming the story was true) anyway, because it's too easy to lean on a judge even if he were inclined to try to 'buck the system'.
 
The article, for the most, was accurate. The incorrect part was that the judge had signed it, which he had not. An interesting comment that followed was that even if he did it wouldn't matter. I don't remember the link, so I would like to ask truth seeker to repost it that we may examine that comment.
 
Buddy said:
Pinkerton said:
I took it to mean that their was not, in fact, a preliminary injunction to halt vaccinations.

The entire story was false? Ok, I thought maybe just a few details were concerned. I had my doubts about how long that would last (assuming the story was true) anyway, because it's too easy to lean on a judge even if he were inclined to try to 'buck the system'.

The article link is here, but the article itself has now been removed. The new editor's note says:

(NaturalNews) Editor's Note: It has come to our attention that the following article is factually incorrect. It was written by a contributing writer, then approved by an in-house editor who did not catch the significant errors in this article. As a result of these significant errors, and due to our commitment to publishing only true and accurate information to the best of our ability, we have made an editorial decision to reject further articles from this author.

NaturalNews deeply regrets this unintentional error, and we are brainstorming new ways to put in place tighter fact-checking oversight so that the same mistake does not happen again in the future. We thank all those who have brought this important matter to our attention, and we pledge to increase our efforts to reject stories that contain factual inaccuracies.

For the record, what was factually incorrect about the story (which we confirmed by phone with a clerk of United States District Court of Trenton, New Jersey) is that no such injunction has been filed. Thus, the entire premise of the story was factually incorrect.

Here at NaturalNews, we strive to bring you accurate, honest information on these topics, and we deeply regret the unintentional publishing of the inaccurate information that previously appeared in this article space.

However, other websites have published the story. This was taken from here:

A Preliminary Injunction to stop mandatory vaccinations has been issued in the United States District Court of New Jersey. This comes after a federal lawsuit opposing forced vaccines was filed in that court by Tim Vawter, pro se attorney, on July 31st with the federal government as defendant. When the judge signs the Preliminary Injunction, it will stop the federal government from forcing anyone in any state to take flu vaccine against their will. It will also prevent a state or local government from forcibly vaccinating anyone, and forbid any person who is not vaccinated from being denied any services or constitutional rights. Vawter's filings included a Complaint, and several pages of evidentiary Exhibits.

Vawter's legal papers have been written not only for filing in federal court, but additionally so they can be looked at by activists around the world for ideas on filing lawsuits in their own countries to help stop forced vaccinations. Vawter believes that as the truth of the dangers of flu vaccines continues to become known, banning the forced use of them will eventually succeed on a worldwide basis. He cautions people to avoid fear and keep themselves focused on the task of blocking forced vaccination.

Preliminary Injunction will immediately halt mandatory vaccinations in the U.S.

The Court, having heard the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and read the papers in its support, states in the Preliminary Injunction that it appears the federal government has engaged in some amount of negligence with regards to failure to properly investigate the safety of the flu vaccines scheduled for use in late 2009-2010, and the evidence submitted does warrant a more thorough investigation into the safety of the flu vaccines.

The Court ordered that the government shall be forbidden from forcing any person to be required to take any influenza vaccination against that person's free will and free choice. The government will not allow any state or local government, or any party, to force any person to be required to take any influenza vaccination against that person's free will and free choice.

It is further ordered that the government shall not deny any constitutional rights to any person who has not received a flu vaccine, nor allow any doctor, company, or other party to deny any of these people services such as medical care, attending school, or similar services or freedoms, nor can the government allow any doctors, companies, or other parties, to deny any of these people their constitutional rights. The only exception to this, where a person who does not get a flu vaccination might be denied certain services, shall be after it is shown in a court of law, with clear and convincing evidence, on an individual case-by-case basis, where due process and a right to a defense is allowed. Only then can a person be denied a particular service because the person did not receive a flu vaccine.

U.S. government sued for gross negligence and violation of the Constitution

In his Cause of Action, Vawter charged that the federal government has engaged in gross negligence by funding and promoting flu vaccines that are proven to be dangerous and manufactured with little oversight. The vaccines scheduled for use in late 2009 and 2010 contain heavy metals including thimerosal mercury, which have been proven to cause autism in children with lowered immune systems, and other dangerous and toxic ingredients. The federal government has stated it will force these flu vaccines onto the American public against their will, under a document signed by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

He further charged that the vaccine makers stand to earn billions of dollars selling vaccines, and are already spending tens of millions advertising a "Phase 6 Pandemic" that the evidence shows does not really exist. The federal government has not required the World Health Organization (WHO) to show evidence of such a pandemic. There has been no collection of facts, sworn testimony, witnesses being questioned, hearings being held, or lie detector tests being given when preposterous statements have been made. The WHO declared a massive "Phase 6 Influenza Pandemic", even though only a few hundred people worldwide had so far died of this swine flu virus, and when far more people die each year of regular flu.

Vawter noted there is a preponderance of evidence to show that the federal government so poorly trained its employees that they eagerly agreed with the unsubstantiated claims of the WHO in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Forced vaccination would violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the government to enter homes and force people to be vaccinated, or to forcibly remove people to another location for vaccination. It would also violate Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights by depriving people of liberty without due process of law.

Vawter charged that the federal government has engaged in gross negligence by failing to properly investigate factual evidence submitted by esteemed medical professions over many years which proves flu vaccines have caused serious damage to people. The CDC has stated that thimerosal mercury is being used in the new flu vaccines being prepared.

The government has failed to investigate profiteering. Billions of dollars in vaccine sales can cause organizations to falsify threats so as to cause unwarranted public hysteria leading to forced vaccinations.

The government is guilty of gross negligence because its employees failed to properly investigate the release of a case of live swine flu virus. One of the main companies the government deals with, Baxter Vaccines, was apparently involved in the transporting of live bird flu virus that was released on a public train earlier this year. A lab technician with the Swiss National Center for Influenza in Geneva had traveled to Zurich to collect eight ampoules, five of which were filled with the H1N1 swine flu virus. However, failure of the dry ice in their container allowed pressure to build up, and the ampoules exploded as the train was pulling into a station.

The highly reputable UK newspaper "the Telegraph" reported on July 2nd that flu vaccines tested on homeless people caused twenty-one of them to die.

Vawter charged there is a preponderance of evidence to show that government will not provide people being vaccinated with a list of the vaccine ingredients and possible negative side effects before they are vaccinated. Most of the public will not know this flu vaccine contains thimerosal mercury.

Vawter submitted an Order to force the government to publish vaccine ingredients and side effects, and to give this information to everyone who takes a flu vaccine, and do so at least 3 days prior to their vaccination. A denial of this order would violate Plaintiff's rights to demand the government obey the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by requiring it to engage in freedom of speech. The First Amendment not only allows a citizen to have freedom of speech himself, but it allows a citizen to demand his government engage in freedom of speech when it is promoting the use of such as these vaccinations to the public.

The government proclamation stating a person cannot sue for any damages he receives from the flu vaccine, completely bypasses the congress and the court system in violation of the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution which grants the right to sue to recover for damages. Vawter submitted an Order to deem unconstitutional any proclamation, rule or similar law that forbids people from suing for damages resulting from the vaccines of 2009 and 2010.

Vawter is seeking damages of $100,000.00 as the result of suffering depression, extreme anxiety and emotional duress when his nephew began life as a healthy, happy baby boy, only to come down with autism after being given baby vaccines that contained thimerosal mercury. For years his nephew has struggled with this incredibly debilitating, preventable condition. According to Vawter, a claim may be submitted not only by his nephew, but by others who have suffered damages from vaccinations.

Vawter claimed that several rules and proclamations detailed in the lawsuit are unconstitutional and claimed that if they are not stricken and amended, he and other people who may not be aware of the offenses or who may be unable to sue, will suffer pending "injury-in-fact" damages. As attorneys and law firms join this lawsuit, recovery requests will reveal the names of additional people who have suffered injuries so they can be contacted about recovering damages, as the law allows.

Motion for Preliminary Injunction claims some vaccines may contain live virus

Although much of the Preliminary Injunction is a reiteration of information contained in his lawsuit, there are a few additions of note. Vawter includes in his grounds the fact that since the manufacturing of flu vaccines involves first destroying a live flu virus, there is a possibility that live flu virus will be in some of the vaccines, causing even more damages to people who receive it, and spreading the virus.

He asked the Court to use federal law enforcement to initiate its own civil and criminal investigation into flu vaccine safety issue, as federal law allows for this.

He noted the days when Hitler's Nazi doctors forcibly gave shots containing adjuvants to innocent people, and reminded that Nazi ideology was stamped out precisely because of those atrocities. He claims it is unwise for the U.S. government to follow in the same path as the Nazis. America is a nation of civil laws, not a dictatorship that gives proclamations bypassing the courts and congress to demand forced vaccinations containing hazardous ingredients known to cause damages.

The forced vaccination debacle of 1976 that the government had to halt because it was injuring more people than it was protecting shows vaccine makers should not be allowed to force their vaccines on people who have no recourse. The prohibition against lawsuits by the injured gives the green light to vaccine makers to include thimerosal mercury in their new flu vaccines. When the Order deeming the forbidding of lawsuits as unconstitutional is given, any defendant will have to present factual proof in federal court, not just hearsay or advertising slogans, as so why the Constitution says it is okay to forbid people from suing to recover damages resulting from flu vaccine.

Medical professionals argue flu vaccines harm not just certain people but almost everyone who receives them. Yet the government has ignored factual evidence proving this, and instead listens to a profit run group of vaccine manufacturers who stand to earn billions of dollars as the government orders forced vaccinations on the public for the coming flu season.

The government has published a chart listing the WHO's "Phase 6 Influenza Pandemic" as being equal to an earthquake measuring 8.0 on the Richter Scale. This chart is preposterous because there are no factual criteria required for an "Influenza Pandemic" to be declared by the United Nations' WHO. The United Nations is a collective of numerous nations, most of whom have very different laws than the U.S. has, and where their leaders can simply declare or proclaim things to be so without judicial review, and their population must obey.

Glaxo Smith Kline stands to make $4 billion from its two flu vaccine drugs. CEO Andrew Witty has said his company has been preparing for a flu pandemic for thee years and has spent over $1 billion to expand its factories. Executives from Glaxo, Baxter, Novartis, and Sanofi Pasteur had seats at the advisory group that on July 13th recommended mandatory H1N1 vaccination for everyone in all 194 countries belonging to the WHO.

The fear mongering involved with this Phase 6 alert has been intense. An example being spread by interested parties is the story of a girl in England purported by the WHO to have died of swine flu because she was not vaccinated. A more thorough investigation later revealed the girl actually died of septic shock due to tonsillitis. The WHO, CDC and numerous vaccine companies have been extensively advertising dire yet apparently concocted warnings of flu pandemics. Yet only a small number of people worldwide have died from the new flu virus.

When influential TV newscasters questioned the WHO proclaiming a "Phase 6 Influenza Pandemic" without factual evidence to prove it, the WHO responded by simply stopping their tracking of swine flu cases, a bizarre behavior on the part of an organization designated to be the main hub for information gathering on the disease.

What's odd about this article, and should have sent up red flags to the reader, is that it first says "When the judge signs the Preliminary Injunction, it will stop the federal government from forcing anyone in any state to take flu vaccine against their will." Then it goes on to say,"The Court ordered that the government shall be forbidden from forcing any person to be required to take any influenza vaccination against that person's free will and free choice.". How could the court have ordered this if it hadn't signed the Preliminary Injunction first? Or maybe I'm misreading it.
 
The comment posted below the article at Natural News.com which I referred to mentions that there already exists a Supreme Court ruling that people do not have a constitutional right to refuse a mandatory vaccine if a pandemic is declared, and that no judge can overrule a Supreme court ruling.

Any thoughts?
 
Mountain Crown said:
The comment posted below the article at Natural News.com which I referred to mentions that there already exists a Supreme Court ruling that people do not have a constitutional right to refuse a mandatory vaccine if a pandemic is declared, and that no judge can overrule a Supreme court ruling.

Any thoughts?

You can find the Supreme Court's opinion on this here. According to the Court, every measure to educate the public should be resorted to, i.e., people should willingly submit to vaccination. However, they go on to say that police power of the State in the end must be resorted to when "appeal to reason is of no avail". What gets me is the assumption that only the state can "appeal to reason" from the predetermined decision that vaccines are good for you. Any appeal to reason otherwise must be illegitimate if it comes from you and contradicts the State's "reason".
But then according to this article from the NYT in April 3, 1903 about a Mass. Supreme Court decision "If a person should deem it important that vaccination not be performed in his case, and the authorities should think otherwise, it is not in their powers to vaccinate him by force and the worst that could happen to him under the statute would be the payment of the penalty of $5." [transcription errors mine]. So it seems to me it has to be considered in each state on exactly what the penalty would be for refusing vaccination, and in Massachusetts they can't use force (at least from the 1903 decision). They can only fine you.
 
Re: Preliminary Injunction to Halt Mandatory Flu Vaccination in the U.S. Has Been Is

Gotnoscript said:
truth seeker said:
Those little smilies are hilarious!

Hopefully people working to get out accurate info will put a wrench in the works.

Unfortunately, it appears the information in this article was fabricated. There's now an editor's note at the top:

Editor's Note: It has come to our attention that the following article is factually incorrect. It was written by a contributing writer, then approved by an in-house editor who did not catch the significant errors in this article. As a result of these significant errors, and due to our commitment to publishing only true and accurate information to the best of our ability, we have made an editorial decision to reject further articles from this author. NaturalNews deeply regrets this unintentional error, and we are brainstorming new ways to put in place tighter fact-checking oversight so that the same mistake does not happen again in the future. We thank all those who have brought this important matter to our attention, and we pledge to increase our efforts to reject stories that contain factual inaccuracies. We only include the full text of the story below so that readers may reference what the original article incorrectly stated, even though we now know the article is factually incorrect. Thank you, - Mike Adams, editor of NaturalNews

The "author" Barbara L Minton seems to have a history of this, hence being dropped by Natural News. There's another article I found in a cached version over at Alterrnet.

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:3IBByEaOXNMJ:www.alternet.org/water/84866/water_shortage_concerns:_city_contemplates_going_from_toilet_to_tap/+%22barbara+L+minton%22&cd=70&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&client=firefox-a

A comment from another author writes.

Barbara Minton did not write this story, she edited it

Posted by: bpoole on May 12, 2008 7:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This story was published (and copyrighted) by the Tucson Citizen, not Natural News. Barbara L. Minton did not write it, I did. She simply edited it and submitted it for publication (presumably for profit). Also, the water "company" she refers to is Tucson Water, the water department for the city of Tucson, Arizona. And the process is not "known as the Fountain Valley process." The process is reverse osmosis. They use it in Fountain Valley, Calif., which is why I referred in the original article to "the Fountain Valley process." Please read the original article (absent factual errors) here: www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/byauthor/83681

She's also written a book on dividend investing which seems to be spammed around the place.

There's a couple of her articles here on the forum which may need re-visiting.
 
Sorry I took so long to respond to this. I have a friend visiting and can't spend as much time on the computer. Thanks for reposting the article and additional information. I want to carefully read over everything so that I can contribute to the conversation.
 
Back
Top Bottom