The 9th Circuit US Court of Appeal in San Francisco, CA has sent a COVID-19 mRNA case back to the lower courts after ruling the injections are not “traditional” vaccines. Plaintiffs argue the COVID-19 shot is a “medical treatment” and not a “traditional vaccine.”The mandatory “vaccine” mandate issued by the US — with similar mandates implemented around the world, including in Canada — was based on a US Supreme Court precedent set back in 1905, Jacobson v. Massachusetts. The landmark required case required “individuals to be vaccinated or face penalties.” The court “recognized that states had absolute authority to enforce compulsory vaccination.” Plaintiffs in the COVID-19 case argued the Los Angeles United School District’s (LAUSD) pandemic-era mandatory “vaccination” policy, which was enforced even up to 12 days after the lawyers made oral arguments, “interfered with their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment.” People who refused to comply lost their jobs. Further, plaintiffs asserted the COVID-19 mRNA jab was not a traditional vaccine, as the Jacobson case set precedent for. The lower courts dismissed the case. The appeals court panel, however, overruled the district court’s order dismissing (the) plaintiff’s action.“We vacate the District Court's order dismissing this claim and remand for further proceedings under the correct legal standard,” wrote the appeals court. .Canadian litigator David Freiheit (Viva Frei on social media) delivered a breakdown on the ruling on YouTube over the weekend. “Simply put, a panel of the court of appeal at the 9th circuit vacated the initial judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim that the COVID-19 ‘vaccination’ policy, and I'll put it in quotes for a damn good reason, violated their rights,” said Viva. “The lower court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, the panel vacated the lower Court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's claim, and here the court of appeals two to one reverse the lower court's decision and sent this back to the lower courts for further consideration.”.“What they've declared is that, at this stage of the proceedings, the plaintiffs have alleged that the COVID-19 jab is not a traditional vaccine such that Jacobson, that horrible precedent in Jacobson, does not apply to their case — such that their case cannot be dismissed on the basis of Jacobson because in Jacobson we were actually dealing with a traditional vaccine that actually prevented the contraction and transmission of a virus," continued Viva.“Whereas in this case we're not dealing with a vaccine, we’re only dealing with something closer to a therapeutic, and therefore this is not a traditional vaccine, therefore Jacobson does not apply.”“That is the argument raised by the plaintiffs, which cannot be dismissed at this stage of the proceedings.”.In the Jacobson case, Viva points out, a small fine was issued to people who chose not to get the vaccine. “The District Court misapplied the Supreme Court's decision in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, stretching it beyond its Public Health rationale,” said Viva.“LAUSD basically argued that the issue was moot because they ended their policy of mandatory vaccination, and the court says you have been playing games throughout this entire context.“The court of appeals says, ‘you are playing serious screwy games and we no longer believe that you're not going to reimplement this policy, so it's not moot’ and ‘we no longer trust you, you no longer have displayed good faith.’”“Jacobson was the decision that people argue authorizes mandatory vaccination, except for the fact that even in Jacobson, it never authorized mandatory vaccination, it just authorized the issuance of a small fine in the event that someone didn't want to get vaccinated — a vaccine that actually worked in the context of small pox," continued Viva.“It's that caveat of a vaccine that actually worked, a traditional vaccine that actually yielded results by way of preventing transmission or contraction of an illness that is going to be at issue here. “In this case, the plaintiffs are alleging that the so-called vaccine, the COVID jab, doesn't even prevent transmitting or contracting the virus, therefore it's not a traditional vaccine under the sense of Jacobson, thus Jacobson doesn't apply to dismiss their case.”
The 9th Circuit US Court of Appeal in San Francisco, CA has sent a COVID-19 mRNA case back to the lower courts after ruling the injections are not “traditional” vaccines. Plaintiffs argue the COVID-19 shot is a “medical treatment” and not a “traditional vaccine.”The mandatory “vaccine” mandate issued by the US — with similar mandates implemented around the world, including in Canada — was based on a US Supreme Court precedent set back in 1905, Jacobson v. Massachusetts. The landmark required case required “individuals to be vaccinated or face penalties.” The court “recognized that states had absolute authority to enforce compulsory vaccination.” Plaintiffs in the COVID-19 case argued the Los Angeles United School District’s (LAUSD) pandemic-era mandatory “vaccination” policy, which was enforced even up to 12 days after the lawyers made oral arguments, “interfered with their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment.” People who refused to comply lost their jobs. Further, plaintiffs asserted the COVID-19 mRNA jab was not a traditional vaccine, as the Jacobson case set precedent for. The lower courts dismissed the case. The appeals court panel, however, overruled the district court’s order dismissing (the) plaintiff’s action.“We vacate the District Court's order dismissing this claim and remand for further proceedings under the correct legal standard,” wrote the appeals court. .Canadian litigator David Freiheit (Viva Frei on social media) delivered a breakdown on the ruling on YouTube over the weekend. “Simply put, a panel of the court of appeal at the 9th circuit vacated the initial judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim that the COVID-19 ‘vaccination’ policy, and I'll put it in quotes for a damn good reason, violated their rights,” said Viva. “The lower court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, the panel vacated the lower Court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's claim, and here the court of appeals two to one reverse the lower court's decision and sent this back to the lower courts for further consideration.”.“What they've declared is that, at this stage of the proceedings, the plaintiffs have alleged that the COVID-19 jab is not a traditional vaccine such that Jacobson, that horrible precedent in Jacobson, does not apply to their case — such that their case cannot be dismissed on the basis of Jacobson because in Jacobson we were actually dealing with a traditional vaccine that actually prevented the contraction and transmission of a virus," continued Viva.“Whereas in this case we're not dealing with a vaccine, we’re only dealing with something closer to a therapeutic, and therefore this is not a traditional vaccine, therefore Jacobson does not apply.”“That is the argument raised by the plaintiffs, which cannot be dismissed at this stage of the proceedings.”.In the Jacobson case, Viva points out, a small fine was issued to people who chose not to get the vaccine. “The District Court misapplied the Supreme Court's decision in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, stretching it beyond its Public Health rationale,” said Viva.“LAUSD basically argued that the issue was moot because they ended their policy of mandatory vaccination, and the court says you have been playing games throughout this entire context.“The court of appeals says, ‘you are playing serious screwy games and we no longer believe that you're not going to reimplement this policy, so it's not moot’ and ‘we no longer trust you, you no longer have displayed good faith.’”“Jacobson was the decision that people argue authorizes mandatory vaccination, except for the fact that even in Jacobson, it never authorized mandatory vaccination, it just authorized the issuance of a small fine in the event that someone didn't want to get vaccinated — a vaccine that actually worked in the context of small pox," continued Viva.“It's that caveat of a vaccine that actually worked, a traditional vaccine that actually yielded results by way of preventing transmission or contraction of an illness that is going to be at issue here. “In this case, the plaintiffs are alleging that the so-called vaccine, the COVID jab, doesn't even prevent transmitting or contracting the virus, therefore it's not a traditional vaccine under the sense of Jacobson, thus Jacobson doesn't apply to dismiss their case.”
