Misleading - Preliminary Injunction To Halt Mandatory Flu Vaccination In The US Has Been Issued

http://www.rense.com/general87/mislead.htm

Misleading - Preliminary Injunction To Halt Mandatory Flu Vaccination In The US Has Been Issued
From Devvy Kidd 8-11-9

I try to avoid whizzing matches, but this latest post has my blood boiling because it is so misleading. It is also being forwarded all over the Internet as truth. My mail box has been filing up all day with Victory! because of the article linked below.

Reading this article on Natural News.com leads people to believe there was an injunction issued by a Federal Court when the court shows no such action.

At the bottom is email forwarded to me with these headlines:

Preliminary Injunction to Halt Mandatory Flu Vaccination in the U.S. Has Been Issued

http://www.naturalnews.com/026818_vaccination_vaccines_flu_vaccine.html

"(NaturalNews) -- 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."

_______________

I can find zero proof a Priminary Injunction has been issued. Mr. Vawter filed documents with the court, but as of three hours ago, nothing has been issued by a judge and there has been no hearing.

I asked my friend who has been an attorney over 30 years (mostly in the federal courts) and subscribes to PACER to obtain the docket for me so I could verify the claims made in the Natural News piece. He said no injunction has been issued by the court.

But, wait, what does it also say above? "When the judge signs the Preliminary Injunction..." You can't have it both ways. "Has been issued" and "When the judge signs" are two different things in the legal world.

Here is the only action on that case number from the court's own docket:

Date Filed # Docket Text

07/31/2009 1 Complaint Received. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Summons, # 3

Application IFP)(eaj) # 4 Text of Proposed Order) (Entered: 07/31/2009)

07/31/2009 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction To Forbid Forced Flu Vaccinations by

TIM VAWTER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(eaj) (Entered:

07/31/2009)l Query l Reportsv l Utilitiesv l Logout

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey

08/07/2009 3 Letter from Tim Vawter with Exhibit H. (Exhibit H is a DVD and has been forwarded to Chambers) (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Tim Vawter)(gxh)

(Entered: 08/07/2009)

Where is proof stated in the paragraphs below from the Natural News article posted today? Where is notification of a hearing? Where is this order signed by either Judge Joel A. Pisano or Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni? If Ms. Minton, the author of the piece, has such proof, why wasn't it linked in her piece?

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.." What order?

According to the court's own docket, the court has heard nothing. The court has not ordered "the government shall be forbidden...."

The last action listed on the court's docket is by Mr. Vawter on August 7, 2009. A letter forwarded by him to Chambers.

Mr. Vawter filed a set of papers requesting the court stop mandatory vaccinations in the U.S.

There is no such requirement at this time except those covered by the states under their mandatory programs, primarily for health care workers. Neither the CDC, Congress, the usurper president or any other agency has issued a mandatory vaccination order, edit, decree or otherwise for the N1H1 flu.

I wrote a short piece about Mr. Vawter's filing and why I believe the court will throw it out:

http://www.rense.com/general87/ss.htm

This is the direct link to the first set of documents:

http://www.wakenews.net/html/us-files.html

Both filings have been given the same case number:

District of New Jersey [LIVE] (Trenton)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:09-cv-03803-JAP-TJB

VAWTER v. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

At the bottom of the Natural News piece it gives a site which has posted a similar document, but that one is 11 pages plus two pages of exhibits listed; it also calls for monetary damages, the original three page submission does not.

http://www.safetylawsuits.com/complaint.html

I sent Ms. Minton an email requesting she provide copies of the court order and hearing to substantiate her statements.

Devvy


Natural News Pulls Article - Apologizes

Preliminary Injunction to Halt Mandatory Flu Vaccination in the U.S. Has Been Issued (correction)

(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. 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

http://www.naturalnews.com/026818_vaccination_vaccines_flu_vaccine.html





Original article
judge rules against compulsory vaccinations
30 years after compulsory vaccination became US Law:

US Court issues an injunction to stop it and to hold the the government and drug companies responsible for reactions.

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.

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.

Robert O. Young, Ph.D., D.Sc.

Founder of ‘THE NEW BIOLOGY’
Creator of the ‘SCIENCE OF ALKALINE
LIVING’T for Health.
———————————————–