Lawsuits to Halt Toxic Flu/Covid Mass-Jabbing

Lawsuits to Halt Toxic Flu/Covid Mass-Jabbing

by Stephen Lendman ( – Home – Stephen Lendman)

Plaintiffs seeking judicial relief to halt health-destroying flu/covid jabs face daunting obstacles in the way of protecting what’s more greatly threatened than ever before in modern memory.

In the US, their struggle is up against court-supported wealth and power interests at the federal and state levels.

Judicial relief from lawsuits filed so far has not been forthcoming because of a rigged system against plaintiffs wanting their health protected, not destroyed by toxic flu/covid jabs.

Yet lawsuits continue to be filed.

In response to the US war department’s mandate for all military personnel to be jabbed by September 15 — refuseniks subject to disciplining action, including court-martial for wanting their health protected — service personnel sued the DOD, HHS and FDA for breaching US constitutional and statute laws, along with military regulations, stating the following:

The Pentagon is “already (jabbing) military members in flagrant violation of its legal obligations and the rights of service members under federal law and the Constitution.”

Mandated flu/covid jabs also breach  “Army Regulation 40-562…”

It “provides documented survivors of an infection a presumptive medical exemption from (jabs) because of the natural immunity acquired as a result of having survived the infection.”

Providing no protection from flu/covid, jabs are designed with irreversibly harming health in mind.

Defying science and the rule of law, war department officials falsely claimed it’s important to jab troops because they live and work in close contact with each other.

Keeping them safe from viral infection requires being jab-free, not the other way around.

The more jabs gotten, the more vulnerable to infection and spreading it to others.

Despite having a strong case according to the rule of international and US law, along with military regulations, suing the war department is virtually certain to go nowhere at a time of deceit throughout the West and elsewhere.

On Friday, US District judge Denise Casper dismissed a lawsuit against Univ. of Massachusetts Boston and Lowell campuses, challenging the legality of mandated flu/covid jabs — falsely claiming the following:

Campus policy is “based…upon both medical and scientific evidence (sic) and research and guidance (sic), and thus is at least rationally related to these legitimate interests (sic),” adding:

Students declining to be jabbed may pursue their studies online (sic).

Education as it should be requires interfacing with teachers and classmates on campus. Anything less falls short.

Univ. of Massachusetts and hundreds of other US institutions of higher learning defied science by mandating health-destroying jabs.

According to legal counsel for U. Mass. students, there’s no US law that permits colleges and universities to mandate jabs.

Arguing for U. Mass., state assistant attorney general Richard Weitzel falsely claimed that school authorities acted “rational(ly)” — only if their intent is destroying health, not protecting it.

On Thursday, Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) sued to halt governor Jay Inslee’s mass-jabbing mandate, saying the state “failed to bargain…in good faith (by arbitrarily striking down union proposals to) modify or mitigate the impacts of the proclamation.”

Nor did it permit counter-proposals to reach an equitable agreement, adding:

If the jabbing mandate sticks, “legal rights of employees represented by the WFSE will be irreparably harmed and impaired, and they will be denied any meaningful and effective remedy.”

Inslee’s health-destroying mandate requires most state employees and healthcare workers to be fully jabbed by October 18 or be sacked.

It’s one of the most hardline ones in the US.

The way to defeat it and others is by mass resistance.

If most students, faculty and staff refuse to obey draconian campus mandates, administrators will be forced to reconsider what’s imposed that has nothing to do with protecting health, everything to do with harming it.

The same goes for public and private workers. 

Withholding services en masse by boycotts is the most effective way to gain what’s highly unlikely to be won in courts at all levels.

On August 27, the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) filed a class-action complaint and preliminary injunction in the US District Court for the Western District of Michigan on behalf of Michigan State University (MSU) students opposed to toxic jabs, saying:

The Supreme Court ruled that “forcible injection(s) into a non-consenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty.”

Compelling students, faculty and staff to be involuntarily jabbed breaches their constitutional rights under the 9th and 14th Amendments — along with the Nuremberg Code and other international law. 

MSU’s mandatory jabbing policy “is irreconcilable with the objectives of the federal statute governing administration of medical products authorized for emergency use,” according to the class-action complaint, adding:

“Pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, a state or local law is preempted when it creates ‘an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.’ ”

Around 2,000 Maine healthcare workers sued to halt a draconian mandate that requires them to be jabbed.

According to Liberty Counsel (LC) — an international nonprofit litigation, education, and policy organization representing them:

“Plaintiffs seek in this lawsuit is to be able to continue to provide the health care they have provided to patients for their entire careers, and to do so under the same protective measures that have sufficed for them to be considered superheroes for the last 18 months.”  

LC called for judicially imposing a temporary restraining order to stop the state mandate from being implemented, arguing:

It breaches protections guaranteed by the First Amendment and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Under international law, voluntary consent is required on all things health related.

In mid-August, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and 18 students sued Rutgers Univ, its board of governors and president, saying the following:

The school’s flu/covid mass-jabbing policy on campus “is an affront to human dignity and personal freedom because it violates our basic right to control our bodies,” adding:

According to the rule of law, everyone has “the right to decide their own medical treatment — especially to decide what to inject into their bodies.” 

“And every person has the right to make that decision voluntarily, free from coercion by anyone, and to be fully informed of the benefits and especially the risks of that decision.”

The Rutgers “mandate undermines our Constitution and Bill of Rights by denying students (and others on campus) the freedom to make their own medical decisions,” CHD President and General Counsel Mary Holland stressed.

Separately in response to the Pharma-connected FDA’s approval of Pfizer’s toxic flu/covid mRNA drug for mass-jabbing, CHD is suing the company and agency for pursuing their own interests at the expense of public health and well-being.

According to Holland, “(w)ith over 13,000 reported deaths (and hundreds of thousands of adverse events from jabs), we are deeply concerned about the impact on health, both short- and long-term,” adding: 

“We intend to challenge this approval and licensure.” 

“We do not believe that this approval will significantly affect the trajectory of (flu/covid outbreaks).” 

According to Meryl Nass MD, a biological warfare expert, widespread illnesses and deaths from flu/covid jabs haven’t been explained or addressed by US public health agencies or Pharma. 

Holland stressed that “CHD opposes (jabbing) mandates on principle,” adding:

“All humans are biologically unique, and one-size-fits-all medicine is simply not scientific, given what we know about individual risk and (jabbing) injur(ies).”

All things flu/covid related — especially toxic jabs — are harming millions of people worldwide.

Halting their use is crucial to cease doing more damage than already.

Other anti-jabbing lawsuits were filed, many more likely ahead —despite a system hostile to this vital issue and others.

VISIT MY WEBSITE: (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”


“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity” 


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: