You would never know this from the mainstream media, but all hell is breaking loose in the courts and administrative agencies. The EEOC is so overwhelmed by employment complaints it is contracting private attorneys as investigators and initial interviews are still months away. State level worker’s compensation systems will probably go bankrupt from claims filed by workers injured by the shot mandates. One million social security disability claims, beyond the expected number, have been filed. Trillions of dollars are on the line.
Thank you for sharing these lawsuits and for your tireless efforts. I thought I'd throw an idea your way and see your thoughts on this lawsuit idea...
The entire past school year, our very large public school district in Ohio has sent (probably close to weekly) emails encouraging students to get vaccinated. However, the emails did not list the potential adverse reactions. When listening to Dr. Russell Blaylock on Children's Health Defense TV, he said that doctors are required to give the potential adverse reactions and alternatives when recommending a pharmaceutical, and, if they don't, they are on the hook for a huge lawsuit. Our really large district has thousands of students and a local pediatrician on the school board, who is a big advocate for the vaccines (and masks, no surprise there). Would that be a potential lawsuit avenue, since the district sent out these emails and he is a doctor on the school board? The message I got this idea after listening to the Dr. Blaylock's segment on CHDtv "how to talk to your legislators". He said that doctors and pharmacists who did not tell the potential adverse reactions are liable and the key for lots of people and he's surprised more people aren't doing this. Many of us would be willing to do something, but don't have willing attorneys, and/or perhaps lack the financial means to do so. However, all these school districts pushed this recommendation without informed consent of the potential harms. Having a doctor (pediatrician) that is on the school board and ultimately the responsible party (collectively) for the district, wouldn't that be a potential lawsuit avenue for our district? This district has been absurdly strict with masking (denied all exemptions, including medical ones) and I'm certain they will do it again this fall.
Thank you Warner!! God bless you and your client for your courage and commitment to the TRuTh and the coercion & Fear that lead this evil mandates 🙏🏻We pray for you. Thanks for fighting for each of us!!
THANKS... SCOTUS Decision 2013 -Pathology vs Myriad Genetics- SCOTUS ruled the 'injection' is now technically 'patented'. 3-MINUTE VIDEO https://www.bitchute.com/video/HTWM3WrfqJqq/ NOW YOU ARE IN A NEW CATEGORY THAT DOES NOT HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS...In a Supreme Court case decision in 2013 - Pathology vs Myriad Genetics, Inc - the United States Supreme Court ruled that you cannot patent human DNA as it is 'a product of nature'. However, at the end of the ruling, the Supreme Court supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf wrote that if you were to change a human's genome by mRNA injections (being used currently) then the (altered) genome Can be patented. This means that everyone who has had the 'injection' is now technically 'patented'. Anything that is patented is 'owned' and comes under the definition of 'trans human'. Therefore, technically, anyone having this 'injection' can no longer have any access to Human Rights. There have been a few legal papers discussing this recently, so there should be clarification on this soon. As of now, the high court ruling stands NOW YOU ARE IN A NEW CATEGORY THAT DOES NOT HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS...In a Supreme Court case decision in 2013 - Pathology vs Myriad Genetics, Inc - the United States Supreme Court ruled that you cannot patent human DNA as it is 'a product of nature'. However, at the end of the ruling, the Supreme Court supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf wrote that if you were to change a human's genome by mRNA injections (being used currently) then the (altered) genome Can be patented. This means that everyone who has had the 'injection' is now technically 'patented'. Anything that is patented is 'owned' and comes under the definition of 'trans human'. Therefore, technically, anyone having this 'injection' can no longer have any access to Human Rights. There have been a few legal papers discussing this recently, so there should be clarification on this soon. As of now, the high court ruling stands
thank you for continuing to pursue all of this. I'm curious as to your thoughts as if and to what degree punitive damages will start coming to really penalize those that did all of this knowingly ? It seems that from the start many knew their demands were besides ethically wrong clearly illegal but like the Ohio governor also knew there wouldn't be much of a fight because of the monetary and legal resources needed. Again a sincere thank you for all of your efforts !
are these lawsuits from people who were fired for not taking the shot? Or, are they personal injury lawsuits from those who were injured from the shot? Or, are they comprised of other things?
This is so encouraging! Thank you for sharing this "behind the scenes" information.
-Etana
Thank you for always working so hard Warner! We appreciate all the lawyers and advocates in this fight!
Thank you for sharing this; so encouraging!!
Justice is a beautiful thing!
Dear Attorney Mendenhall,
Thank you for sharing these lawsuits and for your tireless efforts. I thought I'd throw an idea your way and see your thoughts on this lawsuit idea...
The entire past school year, our very large public school district in Ohio has sent (probably close to weekly) emails encouraging students to get vaccinated. However, the emails did not list the potential adverse reactions. When listening to Dr. Russell Blaylock on Children's Health Defense TV, he said that doctors are required to give the potential adverse reactions and alternatives when recommending a pharmaceutical, and, if they don't, they are on the hook for a huge lawsuit. Our really large district has thousands of students and a local pediatrician on the school board, who is a big advocate for the vaccines (and masks, no surprise there). Would that be a potential lawsuit avenue, since the district sent out these emails and he is a doctor on the school board? The message I got this idea after listening to the Dr. Blaylock's segment on CHDtv "how to talk to your legislators". He said that doctors and pharmacists who did not tell the potential adverse reactions are liable and the key for lots of people and he's surprised more people aren't doing this. Many of us would be willing to do something, but don't have willing attorneys, and/or perhaps lack the financial means to do so. However, all these school districts pushed this recommendation without informed consent of the potential harms. Having a doctor (pediatrician) that is on the school board and ultimately the responsible party (collectively) for the district, wouldn't that be a potential lawsuit avenue for our district? This district has been absurdly strict with masking (denied all exemptions, including medical ones) and I'm certain they will do it again this fall.
CHD tv video link - Dr. Russell Blaylock -- excellent interview (at 1hr 9 min in he discusses this lawsuit idea) Link here: https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org//shows/advocacy-lifeline-with-dawn-richardson/LEbHKZM0Q0
Also, another great piece by Dr. Russell Blaylock Article, The Truth About Covid (excellent read) Here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9062939/
Keep up the great work, Ohio is behind you and appreciate you!
Thank you Warner!! God bless you and your client for your courage and commitment to the TRuTh and the coercion & Fear that lead this evil mandates 🙏🏻We pray for you. Thanks for fighting for each of us!!
How can I file something against my school that withdrew me after I spent thousands in student loans just because I chose not to get vaccinated?
THANKS... SCOTUS Decision 2013 -Pathology vs Myriad Genetics- SCOTUS ruled the 'injection' is now technically 'patented'. 3-MINUTE VIDEO https://www.bitchute.com/video/HTWM3WrfqJqq/ NOW YOU ARE IN A NEW CATEGORY THAT DOES NOT HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS...In a Supreme Court case decision in 2013 - Pathology vs Myriad Genetics, Inc - the United States Supreme Court ruled that you cannot patent human DNA as it is 'a product of nature'. However, at the end of the ruling, the Supreme Court supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf wrote that if you were to change a human's genome by mRNA injections (being used currently) then the (altered) genome Can be patented. This means that everyone who has had the 'injection' is now technically 'patented'. Anything that is patented is 'owned' and comes under the definition of 'trans human'. Therefore, technically, anyone having this 'injection' can no longer have any access to Human Rights. There have been a few legal papers discussing this recently, so there should be clarification on this soon. As of now, the high court ruling stands NOW YOU ARE IN A NEW CATEGORY THAT DOES NOT HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS...In a Supreme Court case decision in 2013 - Pathology vs Myriad Genetics, Inc - the United States Supreme Court ruled that you cannot patent human DNA as it is 'a product of nature'. However, at the end of the ruling, the Supreme Court supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf wrote that if you were to change a human's genome by mRNA injections (being used currently) then the (altered) genome Can be patented. This means that everyone who has had the 'injection' is now technically 'patented'. Anything that is patented is 'owned' and comes under the definition of 'trans human'. Therefore, technically, anyone having this 'injection' can no longer have any access to Human Rights. There have been a few legal papers discussing this recently, so there should be clarification on this soon. As of now, the high court ruling stands
thank you for continuing to pursue all of this. I'm curious as to your thoughts as if and to what degree punitive damages will start coming to really penalize those that did all of this knowingly ? It seems that from the start many knew their demands were besides ethically wrong clearly illegal but like the Ohio governor also knew there wouldn't be much of a fight because of the monetary and legal resources needed. Again a sincere thank you for all of your efforts !
are these lawsuits from people who were fired for not taking the shot? Or, are they personal injury lawsuits from those who were injured from the shot? Or, are they comprised of other things?