Legal Strategies For Vaccine Victims

The defences are not immune

Disclaimer: This does not constitute legal advice, nor does it form a client-attorney relationship. Please seek legal advice from a legally qualified attorney or lawyer.

Let Us Wade Straight In

• Marketing fraud

  • Aimed at: pharmaceutical companies

  • Making false representations on a product’s effectiveness; would you have gotten the product if the claims weren’t true?

• False Claims Act (US only) (see also: Scientific Research Misconduct)

  • Aimed at: government agencies, regulatory authorities, state governments, peer review journals, pharmaceutical companies; Anthony Fauci himself

  • Might sound like ‘fraud’, but relates to taxpayers money being misused on false claims. The False Claims Act applies to whistleblowers within organisations, who can get 30% payout if they prove taxpayers money was wasted on false claims. Shots neither safe nor effective, received taxpayers’ money under false claims, governments spent under false claims. Taxpayer funded studies failed to do valid peer review made false claims. Fauci’s NIH misappropriating funds to finance banned research in China would fall under this.

• Material misrepresentation (contract law)

  • Aimed at: contracts between pharmaceutical companies/governments/healthcare organisations

  • Contracts making materially false representations to safety and efficacy of the product, are contractually null and void, and the fraudster can be sued for damages and losses.

• Deceptive advertising

  • Aimed at: media outlets

  • Making false representations on a product’s effectiveness in an advert. Typically the FCC’s domain, rarely enforced inside the US, it is much more successful in the UK under ASA. May work in the EU. (Do press releases count as advertisements?)

• Libel

  • Aimed at: social media companies

  • Damaging reputation by falsely and inaccurately labeling messages as ‘harmful’, ‘false’ or ‘misleading’ to the public, especially when statements were evidenced, lowers social standing, thus, libel.

• Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Constructive Dismissal (mainly UK, varies by US State, varies by European country)

  • Aimed at: the workplace

  • If a manager, co-worker(s) or workplace bullied, coerced, or harassed into getting the shot, whether successful or not, and/or ultimately fired you after a torrent of abuse and mistreatment… is likely grounds for harassment, bullying or constructive dismissal. Do not forget psychological and special damages in the remedial stage.

    • Harassment is when you receive abuse on a regular basis

    • Bullying is when multiple co-workers engage in abusive practices

    • Constructive dismissal is when a manager or co-worker makes changes to your work, routine, or structure, to make working there as unpleasant as possible, IE they constructed a toxic work environment that led to your dismissal.

      • Prime example would be a hospital doctor reassigned to stacking cups, or a co-worker keeps sabotaging, changing work equipment. Write-ups with shallow reasoning to justify firing are also signs.

      • It is pretty broad - essentially if they engage in unjustifible actions with the intent of causing to quit or firing, may be grounds for constructive dismissal.

• Workplace injury lawsuit (most countries)

  • Aimed at: the workplace.

  • Even signing a ‘death waiver’ or ‘injury waiver’ won’t necessarily indemnify them, as some countries and States prohibit the signing away of basic rights, and contracts that engage in material misrepresentation can be nullified.

  • If forced to take a shot and got injured, your workplace is liable for a workplace related injury, if it was required to work there. No different if they forced people to wear a defective hardhat that resulted in an injury.

• Simple Assault (UK law; similar laws may apply in the US)

  • Aimed at: the workplace

  • If a workplace compelled or coerced you into getting a shot, the act of doing so likely constitutes ‘simple assault’ (with the needle itself seen as the weapon).

• Gross negligence

  • Aimed at: shot administrators, healthcare workers, healthcare organisations (more effective if aimed at the individual level)

  • Failure to appropriately inform of the risks resulting in injuries and harms, failure to undertake appropriate steps to research the product, failure to prevent the harms once recognised. Will lie heavily on ‘foresight’: was the harm a foreseeable risk. Yes, yes it was.

• Medical complaint (most countries; not China)

  • Aimed at: healthcare workers who gave the shot

  • Isn’t conventional litigation per se, filing complaints about healthcare workers who failed to give informed (read: warn you of all risks) consent (read: coerced or gave it to you without permission) to appropriate health boards - especially in medical freedom States and countries - is bound to give them a hard time. Best case they get fired for malpractice. Worst case they get bogged down in retaliatory paperwork, which stalls them from promoting the poison shot to others.

• RICO/Corruption charges (mainly US)

  • Aimed at: CDC, FDA, health regulatory agencies

  • RICO is one of few US criminal laws that can be brought by private prosecution against a corrupt organisation. Evidence by BMJ of collusion between CDC, FDA and pharmaceutical companies would suffice to lay the groundwork for a RICO charge against them.

  • Other countries may have similar corruption laws that could apply to their regulatory health agencies. Private prosecution is possible in the UK, for example.

• Manslaughter

  • Aimed at: ignorant healthcare workers, healthcare organisations

  • Varies by jurisidiction: typically the ‘unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice.’

  • Can be proven by highlighting evidence indicating risks of death. Their ignorance is not a valid defence here as intent does not have to be proven.

• Dereliction of duty (mainly US)

  • Aimed at: military shot administrators, heads of military

  • Failure to do appropriate research, failure to notify, failure to give sufficient and explicit warnings, failure to grant religious exemptions where appropriate.

  • Other laws here may apply, but the military operate under military law internally, so a military lawyer would be the best placed to advised. External laws may apply to the heads of branches and organisations.

• Anti-competitive practices/anti-competition laws

  • Aimed at: businesses mandating or requiring vaccines for third party contractors.

    • Especially ones with a slapdash selection process; even better if the work would not require vaccination (EG remote work). This does not apply to direct employees as it isn’t a competition for contract work.

  • Argue that the denial of contract work opportunities based on arbitrarily enforced criteria not relevant to the work is anti-competitive.

• First Amendment violations

  • Aimed at: governments exclusively

  • In any instance a government refuses your ability to freely assemble over healthcare status, they will have violated First Amendment rights. New York City’s vaccine mandate would be one. Does not matter if they ended it, so long as your rights were violated at some point and it hasn’t expired due to Statue of Limitations.

  • Likewise any collusion between government and other companies to engage in censorship of your viewpoints (EG US Gov + Twitter, US Gov + Facebook etc)

• Private Prosecution of Murder (mainly UK only)

  • Aimed at: pharmaceutical companies.

  • This would be difficult, although not impossible, to prove. Showing that pharmaceutical companies were aware their products were defective and harmful (see EMA leaks), and then continued to make material misrepresentations it was safe, knowing full well it would kill, for profit, would be evidence of murder.

  • Risks: The Crown Prosecution Service in the UK can hijack any private prosecution in the UK at any time, and thus ‘fold it down’. Doing so would open up that part of the law for reforms and changes given the abuse of power.

• Litigation against unfair compensation (UK only)

  • Aimed at: UK government

  • Currently the maximum compensation one can get is £120,000. This can be shown to be a violation of the law because historically compensation is set by how much money it takes to ‘set things back as they were’.

    • An arbitrarily low limit denies severely injured victims their remedial justice to get sufficient compensation, which violates their rights in law.

    • Given this includes death, the compensation ought to be set to unlimited, as otherwise it puts killing a person at £120,000 which is ‘just the price of murder’. Currently, the UK government pays out £120,000 equally for a lost leg or a death, which is a violation of legal sensibilities as death should surely warrant a higher payout.

    • Additionally, the UK government only pays out if you’re ‘60% or more disabled’. This is arbitrary and discriminatory, and denies ‘59% or less’ disabled people (as if disability is an arbitrary percentage!) their rights under law, which is in violation of anti-discrimination laws, and unjust.

    • It essentially allows the UK government to get away with injuring people below a certain percentage, which encourages the UK government to be lax in terms of healthcare safety, which is a violation of sensible law.

• Magna Carta violations (mainly UK; US can also apply but Sixth and Seventh amendments are superior; Canada and Australia can also apply)

  • Aimed at: UK government (or other governments under magna carta)

  • The Magna Carta specifies that the public have a right to a trial by either judge or jury. A law cannot be passed denying people this right. Immunity to liability denies them this Magna Carta right as they are not able to bring the accused before a judge or jury; additionally, Statue of Limitations guarantees said rights will be forever denied even if the legislation were to be revoked.

• Discrimination laws (UK, Europe)

  • Aimed at: employers, government.

  • Discrimination over your health status in terms of work or travel would prompt a violation of various anti-discrimination laws in both the UK and Europe.

• Civil Rights Act (US only)

  • Aimed at: governments, private businesses who fall under the categories

  • The Civil Rights Act opposes discrimination (including health status) in specific settings, mainly restaurants, travel lodgings, housing, recreational areas (lounges, gyms, dance areas) and more.

• Scientific Fraud/Malfeasance/Corruption lawsuits

  • Aimed at: peer review journals/outlets.

  • This isn’t strictly a law per se, however academics live and die by reputation. Having their reputation drawn through the mud and exposed as a sham artist in a large publicity legal trial is going to put them on the defence. What laws and regulations apply will vary by country and State, as well as what regulatory body oversees such complaints and cases.

These are just some of the laws and legal approaches I could find with a cursory search and operating from basic knowledge of the law. Professionals likely could expand upon this.

A Wake Up Call

I’m surprised to see people opposed to harms of the COVID-19 shots talk as if writing letters is their only option.

Governments and vaccine companies might front tough, but their approaches are legally flawed. Just because the lying b*****ds say they have immunity to litigation, does not mean that is so. Fight, fight, fight! Examine laws in-depth, assess for weaknesses, look for technicalities.

This isn’t some armchair commentary either. In the article “Have I Been Able To Redpill People?”, I detailed how I manually contacted no less than 24 States with legal proposals to get the ball rolling on defeating vaccine mandates, which ultimately crippled Biden’s illegal Federal mandates:

The above are potentially valid legal approaches, it depends on deep pockets (try crowdsourcing, swaying rich folks to fight) and what judges you get. You won’t necessarily win all battles - but that doesn’t mean you will lose all either.

Legal action has a chilling effect on behaviour. Hospitals avoid clinical risk (read: legal risk) like the plague. Even a whiff of an expensive, multi-dollar lawsuit is going to cause retreat, as all litigation - successful or not - will cost time and money. Don’t let them, or their mandatory medical experiment forcing stooges get away with it.

Legal Approaches: Get Technical

People assume you go through the front door to get justice. Not so. Technicalities, complaints, paperwork: all viable. Lawyers hunt technicalities. Legal loopholes. A really good lawyer spends many hours grasping the ins and outs of what a law does and does not say, and gets technical.

Lawyers will appeal to obscure or niche laws - ones which don’t necessarily apply directly to the legal outcome they’re seeking. Companies understand intention regardless: ‘either you capitulate or we pick through everything you do with a legal finetooth comb’.

Example: Pfizer. Don’t immediately focus on poison shots and mandates you’re trying to overturn. Legally investigate over anything and everything they do. A fraud committed implies fraudulent behaviours elsewhere. Pick them apart legally from every angle, like vultures on a dead corpse. Make them regret abusing position of power, draw attention to every aspect of operations.

Due Process Violations

In “Healthcare Reform: Revoking Immunity”, I point out for Americans, pharmaceutical companies being immune to civil lawsuit via special masters court is violation of the Seventh amendment which requires a jury trial, and violation of the right to see an accuser. I’ve yet to see anyone mention or spearhead this.

Similarly likely applies in other countries. No-one has legally tested soundness or validity of ‘immunity to liability’. It is an offence to the conscience, because it subsumes liability and grants indemnity to the justice of law, denying victims’ rights to protection against abusers.

Overturning it is crucial. From it, forks all other disasters this event is based. More needs to be done to highlight this as a valid legal approach and for it to be adopted by those spearheading against vaccine violations.

Help make the Daily Beagle financially viable! Consider becoming a paying subscriber today!

Want others to learn? Know some lawyers who might be interested?

Learn anything new or interesting? Got your own ideas?

.