Let the lawsuits begin. Photo Illustration: Jonathan Hurtarte/Bloomberg Law; Photos: Getty Images
Views: 33
Covid Vaccine Injury Suit May Fuel Federal Overhaul, Litigation. Bloomberg Law has a great article on how litigation on COVID Vaccine injuries are being handled.
We may never know how many thousands if not millions suffered and in many cases died from the vaccines worldwide. Hopefully this lawsuit will help and bring more claims forward.
Lawyers say the move could spur Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services to reform how they handle vaccine injuries, as well as push more of the individuals alleging injuries to not just sue the government, but the drugmakers that the program is meant to shield from litigation.
Headlines making the news. Today we have a very long list of what’s happened and is happening around the world. See if any of the topics peaks your interest, and feel free to comment.
North Carolina is suing HCA Healthcareopens in a new tab or window, alleging that it breached terms of the takeover agreement with Mission Health and has “degraded” care at the former nonprofit. (STAT)
Emergency contraception useopens in a new tab or window among American women more than doubled since the morning-after pill was approved to be sold without a prescription (from 10.8% in 2006-2010 to 26.6% in 2015-2019), according to CDC data.
UAW Local 5960 member Kimberly Fuhr inspects a Chevrolet Bolt EV during vehicle production on May 6, 2021, at the General Motors Orion Assembly Plant in Orion Township, Michigan.
Views: 9
How can this be? GM laying off workers? But it’s all about building the EV. Not so long ago we were told that this new contract would make life so much better for the union folk. Huge raise come at a price, but no the workers wouldn’t listen. Now the layoffs begin.
First it was the slashing od 24% of the workforce at it’s Cruse division. And all the robo taxi’s built there recalled.
Now this. GM plans to lay off about 1,300 workers in Michigan starting early next year due to vehicles they produce ending production, the company disclosed in state documents.
But don’t worry they will have jobs for you in 2025. Yeah right.
Stop Progressive misinformation groups.
Alex Wong / Getty Images
Views: 13
Winning. Congressman Johnson gets a stop misinformation amendment in the Defense Bill. It’s been a regular practice by the Biden Administration to allow Progressive groups like Newsguard and Global Disinformation Index (GDI) to control who’s allowed to advertise with the Pentagon. This new bill stops that.
The new NDAA provision expressly prohibits any advertising agency the Defense Department contracts with from using services that engage in “determinations of misinformation.”
The new law would also require the Pentagon to inform the House and Senate Armed Services committees any time the recruitment division directly contracts with NewsGuard, GDI or a similar entity.
Biden wants jail time for those who refuse to testify.
Views: 17
No Hunter, a Deposition isn’t done in public, it’s done in Private. Hunter Biden ignored his subpoena claiming he wanted a public deposition and cameras there to record the deposition.
The cameras were going to be there and in depositions you have a court reporter who takes down everything word for word. Not good enough for Hunter.
I’ve been part of depositions in both civil and criminal cases and they’re not public. Private hearing and 100% recorded by a court reporter. Even a cough is reported in the hearing, so nothings left out.
Now the next move is for Contempt of Congress Proceedings. Now as you know, Navarro and Bannon were arrested when they ignored subpoenas. Will Garland have Hunter arrested for doing the same?
Joe Biden thinks that those who ignore a subpoena should be arrested.
If true, how scary is this? More than 1-in-5 Mail-In Voters Admit to Cheating in 2020 Election. A recent poll showed that more than 1-in-5 voters who submitted ballots by mail say they did so fraudulently. Some highlights from that poll.
The survey asked those who voted by mail in the 2020 election if they filled out a ballot “in part or in full, on behalf of a friend or family member, such as a spouse or child?” to which 21 percent said they had done so. Though many states allow voters to receive assistance while voting, the Heartland Institute notes, filling out ballots on behalf of another person is illegal across the United States.
In addition, 17 percent of mail-in voters in the 2020 election said they cast a ballot in a state where they were no longer a permanent resident — a violation of federal election law. Another 17 percent of mail-in voters said they signed a ballot on behalf of someone else, also a violation of election law. Another 10 percent of all voters said they know someone who admitted to casting a mail-in ballot in a state where they are not a permanent resident and 11 percent said they know someone who admitted to signing a mail-in ballot on behalf of someone else in the 2020 election.
NAACP says show me your papers, Judge says no. The NAACP tried to stick their nose into the Governors private papers, the judge said Constitution protected.
A judge sided with Gov. Glenn Youngkin after the Virginia NAACP attempted to sue him.
The judge said, based on the evidence presented in court, those documents included confidential information and were exempt from the group’s FOIA request, as working papers for the Gov. are protected under the constitution.
MIAMI, FLORIDA - MAY 05: A 'Now Hiring' sign posted outside of a restaurant looking to hire workers on May 05, 2023 in Miami, Florida. A report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed the US economy added 253,000 jobs in April. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Views: 26
How can this be? NY Times claims that ‘Stable Jobs with Decent Pay’ Harder to Find Due to Mass Immigration. The left was always saying that the undocumented were good for the economy. They work, pay taxes, etc. Yes, they do. but at what cost?
They flood the lower jobs and drive down wages. So, when citizens get a job it’s for less pay. Here’s what the NY Times says.
“That influx of workers, which includes a recovery in immigration flows, has also taken the air out of wage increases and made it more difficult for people on the margins of the labor market to find stable jobs with decent pay,” the Timesreports:
Why are you still being jabbed? Part 2. In case you haven’t heard, the CDC and the WHO both declared back in May that the Obama-Biden COVID Pandemic was over.
Now some are saying that you still must continue to get the new, better, and miracle cure all vaccine. Again. Forget the fact that it only increases the chances of side effects, Hospitalization, and Death.
(Left) Special counsel Jack Smith in Washington on Aug. 1, 2023. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images) / (Right) Former U.S. President Donald Trump. (David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
Views: 18
(Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/Pool via Getty Images)
Reported by THE EPOCH TIMES
The special counsel’s office is preempting former President Donald Trump’s appeal of his case to the U.S. Supreme Court by petitioning the high court for a writ certiorari before judgment—an immediate ruling—of whether the former president can rely on his presidential immunity defense.
Special counsel Jack Smith has charged President Trump on four counts regarding his actions to challenge the 2020 election results; President Trump has filed four motions to dismiss the case. Several were rejected by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, and the defense has since appealed the motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity to a federal appeals court.
The prosecutors are asking the Supreme Court “whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin.”
President Trump had asked the district court to pause proceedings pending appeal, noting that he would seek that pause from the appeals court if the district court didn’t grant it. If granted in either court, the legal strategy would certainly throw off the trial schedule.
Prosecutors are now asking the Supreme Court to issue judgment before the appeals court makes a decision.
“This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy,” the special counsel’s team argued in the new filing. “The district court rejected respondent’s claims, correctly recognizing that former Presidents are not above the law and are accountable for their violations of federal criminal law while in office.”
They argue that President Trump’s legal strategy in the appellate court now jeopardizes the March 4, 2024, trial date.
“It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected,” the prosecutors argued.
They claimed that President Trump is “profoundly mistaken” on the law and only the Supreme Court can “definitively resolve” the issues at hand. The court’s granting the writ of certiorari before judgment would “provide the expeditious resolution that this case warrants.”
he former president issued a statement describing the move as a “Hail Mary” on the prosecutor’s part, “by racing to the Supreme Court and attempting to bypass the appellate process.”
He also noted Mr. Smith’s poor record at the high court, which he stated “has not been kind to him, including by handing down a rare unanimous rebuke when the Court overturned him 8-0 in the McDonnell case,” in which Mr. Smith prosecuted former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell.
President Trump reiterated his belief that the prosecution is politically motivated.
“There is absolutely no reason to rush this sham to trial except to injure President Trump and tens of millions of his supporters. President Trump will continue to fight for Justice and oppose these authoritarian tactics,” he stated.
Trial Date
The trial on March 4, one day before Super Tuesday Republican primary elections in more than a dozen states, would be the first of the four criminal cases against President Trump.
The 45th president, who has pleaded not guilty to 91 criminal counts, was also facing a May trial date in a federal criminal case in the Southern District of Florida, which is almost certainly going to be postponed as the judge is set to revisit the trial schedule in January.
In Georgia, prosecutors have pushed for an August 2024 trial start, which President Trump’s attorney has argued falls too close to the general election, likely putting jurors in the position of voting for or against him while they attempt to try the case objectively.
President Trump is also facing criminal charges in Manhattan; prosecutors originally set a March 2024 trial date, but the court is set to postpone the case around the schedules of these other criminal cases.
On top of that, President Trump faces several civil lawsuits, one with trial ongoing in New York and another two set to go to trial in mid-January.
Presidential Immunity?
On Dec. 1, a federal appeals court ruled that presidential immunity doesn’t shield President Trump from lawsuits regarding the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach and noted that the court wouldn’t be the final authority on the issue.
In November 2022, Mr. Smith was appointed special counsel on issues related to the Capitol breach, just days after President Trump announced his candidacy. This summer, he unsealed the indictment against President Trump alleging criminal conspiracy in his actions to challenge the 2020 results, tying much of the case to Jan. 6, 2021.
U.S. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan ruled that President Trump was acting as candidate Trump in much of what he is being sued for and that his actions weren’t official acts of a president.
“When a sitting president running for re-election speaks in a campaign ad or in accepting his political party’s nomination at the party convention, he typically speaks on matters of public concern. Yet he does so in an unofficial, private capacity as office-seeker, not an official capacity as office-holder. And actions taken in an unofficial capacity cannot qualify for official-act immunity,” he wrote, rejecting an appeal filed by President Trump, who is also facing civil lawsuits related to Jan. 6, 2021.
The judge added that the rejection of presidential immunity in this case assumes truth in the plaintiffs’ allegations against him, which will need to play out in district court.
“When these cases move forward in the district court, [President Trump] must be afforded the opportunity to develop his own facts on the immunity question if he desires to show that he took the actions alleged in the complaints in his official capacity as President rather than in his unofficial capacity as a candidate,” he wrote. “At the appropriate time, he can move for summary judgment on his claim of official-act immunity.”
The special counsel’s office argues that President Trump sought to “overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud” and that he conspired with several people outside of office to do so.
They rebutted President Trump’s presidential immunity defense by arguing that a former president doesn’t have the same immunity and that if he did, it “would be narrower than the ‘outer perimeter’ standard” afforded a sitting president.
The defense argued that President Trump has a history of taking allegations of election fraud seriously, pointing to several investigations he approved while in office, and argued that the speech about election fraud during the end of his term fell squarely within the duties of a president. The special counsel frames the situation quite differently, arguing that President Trump was aware of having legitimately lost the election when he made allegedly false claims about election fraud and “stolen” votes.
In the petition to the Supreme Court, they are also arguing that President Trump has been impeached on similar issues and that the immunity argument is “undercut” by the impeachment clause.
The special counsel has argued, and the district court affirmed, that to grant President Trump presidential immunity here would be to put him “above the law.”
If the Supreme Court agrees to issue judgment before the appeals court rules, it may throw off President Trump’s plans to stall the case past the general election.
204
