Don't trial lawyer firms typically sue organizations with "deep pockets?" Wouldn't Georgetown University have very deep pockets? Wouldn't a huge judgement (punitive damages) grab the attention of all the other plaintiff law firms that are afraid to go against the System and file these type suits?
Although I'm glad this lawsuit was filed (and CHD is helping the cause), by no means do I think this case will prevail. In Washington D.C. court system? The Powers that Be can't allow ONE of these suits to be successful.
Then again, if it gets in front of the right jury, they might want to send a signal to The Man. We won't know what happens until more of these suits are brought.
I just made the same post at another site! I'd like to go and be a fly on the wall and give these guys and gals a pep talk. Atlanta is not that far from me.
Two interesting things to note. Georgetown is THE Blue Hell outside of Maryland. That means the Dr was is a covidiot. What's surprising is that the mother is anti covid vaxx in that area.
I am not in favour of massive lawsuits and I am not in favour of doctors doing any treatment on a minor without parental consent and lastly I am not in favour of the covid jab for anyone under 18 under any circumstances. This is another in the continuing disaster of the medical community forcing people to get jabbed in spite of the overwhelming evidence of serious side effects. A few large lawsuit settlements may be what it takes to get doctors to stop jabbing people.
That's my main take-away as well, Fred. We all know of plenty of meritless lawsuits (which are kind of like extortion), but some lawsuits produce powerful results. This is why I included trial lawyers in my article about "captured" institutions that are NOT "searching for the truth." An authentic lawsuit (or scores or thousands of them) would give the public the truth ... But first they have to be filed and tried.
I feel for this mother. My 16 year old son walked into a Walgreens alone and got Pfizer without my permission. I had no idea he was planning to do this. In South Carolina, it is legal for a 16 year old to get vaccines on their own. 9/19/2022 was the WORST day of my entire life. I have never felt so betrayed.
What you just described is what I have been afraid of with my daughter away at college. She got an exemption but early on she was left out of concerts and other places in CA and I felt she would succumb to the pressure. I still don't know if she did this behind my back. I'm sorry and can feel your pain. Just pray for God to cleanse him. Best wishes!
That doctor should personally financially be held responsible for healthcare for both of those kids for life. No matter what happens, she has to pay for it out-of-pocket. Every single penny. Period! No taking them to clinics, no treating them herself, no having friends treat them.
Curious to know what is meant by "Children’s Health Defense is funding a lawsuit .." as imo there needs to be much more of this. People keep complaining that lawyers are not stepping up to help our team, but lawyers have families to feed too and only those being sponsored by big fancy law firms can typically afford to work pro bono.
I don't know. That sentence caught my attention as well. I know CHD files their own lawsuits, which I assume they file with the standard condition they will get fees if the client and firm wins the case. It sounds like another lawyer is taking the lead in this case, but CHD is providing funding to help with that lawyer's expenses?
Regardless, it sounds like a good and important case to me. If nothing else, it will get the attention of doctors or nurses who might be coercing children or teenagers into getting these jabs - which I'm sure is happening far more than we recognize.
I couldn't agree more, Bill - and am quite sure there are many potential litigants/lawsuits out there warranting zealous legal help that could help defend civil liberties across the board.
But we all know (or should know) is that the vast majority of 'pro bono' legal work is done by Big Firm lawyers (with their salaries/expenses subsidized (often unknowingly) from profits extracted from corporate clients) whose severe leftist orientation (especially of their junior associates), means that its only provided to plaintiffs & issues favored by leftists. (For example, it's hardly a surprise that J6 defendants can't find pro bono representation whereas BLM defendants can.) My point, therefore, is a practical one: non Big Firm lawyers - who may very well be supporters of our cause - can't afford to work for free pending a potential (and maybe improbable) contingent fee down the road. So if we want to see more of this work done, we need to stop bitching about 'lawyers not stepping up' and think harder about how to channel funds to those that would if they could.
Good points. I think the Plaintiff's firms know they have a lucrative and good thing going with their current system, which depends on the support of the political establishment. Filing Covid cases would make the Powers that Be have a conniption fit IMO.
Every time I turn on the TV or radio hear/see a commercial seeking plaintiff's in the Camp LeJune contaminated water case. The law firms are looking for clients who suffered any number of medical injuries - 1 to 30 years later. My question is where are the same dang law firms with the Covid jab cases? There were more injured jab victims in two months than 20 years of Camp LeJune injuries.
And then there's all the asbestos lawsuits, which are still a cash cow for law firms.
Those lawsuits don't just sue the companies that made the asbestos, it's any company that used it or exposed people to it. I don't know why the same legal rationale wouldn't apply to the Covid jabs. That is, you'd have no problem finding defendants even if you couldn't sue Pfizer or Moderna.
I don't know. There's some reason only a few law firms are filing/bringing cases.
Absolutely. Unfortunately, while the Plaintiffs' Bar likes to propagandize itself as 'sticking it to the Man', it is largely the creation of the most amoral and avaricious elements of the profession. They are not lawyers who really give a damn about justice or civil rights etc, just on using those principles if/when it will make them a bunch of $$. Once those guys decide this is a lucrative field to operate in, they will jump on board. But the legal heavy-lifting will first need to be done by those who primarily believe in the cause. It's lawyers like that that need (modest but non-zero financial support from our side.
Hear! Hear! If we are able, let's all support the brave and sincere attorneys and firms. Celebrate them. Thank them. Pray for them. Wish them good luck. The real lawyers are searching for the real truth and trying to deliver justice.
Thanks. Establishing a "precedent" is very important. Once all these AWOL trial lawyer firms see that such cases can be won, maybe more of them will start representing injured or wronged clients as well.
Protect the children if nothing else. If we live in a society where the adults don't advocate for the children, we're probably lost. The Covid mortality rate for a healthy child (without "life-altering" medical conditions) is 0.0001 percent, per a UK study I wrote about. That means you have to go out four decimal points to even find a (dubious) risk of death. At three decimal points, the mortality risk is 0.000 percent.
I hate to sound harsh, but what the heck was this mother thinking? From what I understand, a doctor can not examine a minor without a parent in the room. This story sounds evil and diabolical, and I hope the doctor is given a jail sentence, but the mother should have stayed with them. My son is 17 and our Dr still says I need to stay in the room.
Thanks Cindy. It's another David Martin knocking it way out of the park!
This is a very important and undeniable reveal by the incomparable David Martin, Ph.D.
If you haven't been steeping yourself in David Martin and his reveals since this drama started 3 years ago you might be wondering about the credentials and wherewithal of this individual.
Please wonder no more. He is arguably the brightest thinker and analyst on the SCV-2 and C-19 tyranny that I know of. Please see for yourselves!
His analysis of the patent history is a start for you if you would like to steep in some vintage David Martin.
For instance, his now 3 year old exposure of US patent #7279327 is another noteworthy reveal. Baric and Yount applied for this patent in 2002. This is the same Baric and Yount of U. of North Carolina who Martin exposes as the real creators of the SCV-2 virus in the video link Cindy has provided. Yes indeed, this all really started back in 2002...over 20 years ago!
You can also go to this page at the Planet Lockdown website and scroll down through the listing of luminary interviews to get to David Martin's interview if you want to see some vintage David Martin.
Don't trial lawyer firms typically sue organizations with "deep pockets?" Wouldn't Georgetown University have very deep pockets? Wouldn't a huge judgement (punitive damages) grab the attention of all the other plaintiff law firms that are afraid to go against the System and file these type suits?
Although I'm glad this lawsuit was filed (and CHD is helping the cause), by no means do I think this case will prevail. In Washington D.C. court system? The Powers that Be can't allow ONE of these suits to be successful.
Then again, if it gets in front of the right jury, they might want to send a signal to The Man. We won't know what happens until more of these suits are brought.
It will be curious to see attendance numbers at the VSRF Covid Litigation Conference in Atlanta this month.
I just made the same post at another site! I'd like to go and be a fly on the wall and give these guys and gals a pep talk. Atlanta is not that far from me.
This is a criminal case. She needs to file a police report.
How much does this clinic get paid for each injection? ... the EUA injection in particular
I don't know, but good question. I bet they aren't doing it for free.
Thank you. I learned of the compensation per vax injected in pediatrician offices in a talk by Dr Thomas.
That's going to become the most expensive $40 they've ever made.
Attempted murder
Two interesting things to note. Georgetown is THE Blue Hell outside of Maryland. That means the Dr was is a covidiot. What's surprising is that the mother is anti covid vaxx in that area.
What a nasty human. What rage and frustration I feel on behalf of that poor mother. No medical ethics whatsoever. That doctor should lose her license.
Such important reporting. Gladly re-tweeted this article Bill
Thanks, Dan. Great reporting by CHD not me. The best journalism on Covid topics is produced by a law firm.
I am not in favour of massive lawsuits and I am not in favour of doctors doing any treatment on a minor without parental consent and lastly I am not in favour of the covid jab for anyone under 18 under any circumstances. This is another in the continuing disaster of the medical community forcing people to get jabbed in spite of the overwhelming evidence of serious side effects. A few large lawsuit settlements may be what it takes to get doctors to stop jabbing people.
That's my main take-away as well, Fred. We all know of plenty of meritless lawsuits (which are kind of like extortion), but some lawsuits produce powerful results. This is why I included trial lawyers in my article about "captured" institutions that are NOT "searching for the truth." An authentic lawsuit (or scores or thousands of them) would give the public the truth ... But first they have to be filed and tried.
I feel for this mother. My 16 year old son walked into a Walgreens alone and got Pfizer without my permission. I had no idea he was planning to do this. In South Carolina, it is legal for a 16 year old to get vaccines on their own. 9/19/2022 was the WORST day of my entire life. I have never felt so betrayed.
What you just described is what I have been afraid of with my daughter away at college. She got an exemption but early on she was left out of concerts and other places in CA and I felt she would succumb to the pressure. I still don't know if she did this behind my back. I'm sorry and can feel your pain. Just pray for God to cleanse him. Best wishes!
That doctor should personally financially be held responsible for healthcare for both of those kids for life. No matter what happens, she has to pay for it out-of-pocket. Every single penny. Period! No taking them to clinics, no treating them herself, no having friends treat them.
Curious to know what is meant by "Children’s Health Defense is funding a lawsuit .." as imo there needs to be much more of this. People keep complaining that lawyers are not stepping up to help our team, but lawyers have families to feed too and only those being sponsored by big fancy law firms can typically afford to work pro bono.
I don't know. That sentence caught my attention as well. I know CHD files their own lawsuits, which I assume they file with the standard condition they will get fees if the client and firm wins the case. It sounds like another lawyer is taking the lead in this case, but CHD is providing funding to help with that lawyer's expenses?
Regardless, it sounds like a good and important case to me. If nothing else, it will get the attention of doctors or nurses who might be coercing children or teenagers into getting these jabs - which I'm sure is happening far more than we recognize.
I couldn't agree more, Bill - and am quite sure there are many potential litigants/lawsuits out there warranting zealous legal help that could help defend civil liberties across the board.
But we all know (or should know) is that the vast majority of 'pro bono' legal work is done by Big Firm lawyers (with their salaries/expenses subsidized (often unknowingly) from profits extracted from corporate clients) whose severe leftist orientation (especially of their junior associates), means that its only provided to plaintiffs & issues favored by leftists. (For example, it's hardly a surprise that J6 defendants can't find pro bono representation whereas BLM defendants can.) My point, therefore, is a practical one: non Big Firm lawyers - who may very well be supporters of our cause - can't afford to work for free pending a potential (and maybe improbable) contingent fee down the road. So if we want to see more of this work done, we need to stop bitching about 'lawyers not stepping up' and think harder about how to channel funds to those that would if they could.
Good points. I think the Plaintiff's firms know they have a lucrative and good thing going with their current system, which depends on the support of the political establishment. Filing Covid cases would make the Powers that Be have a conniption fit IMO.
Every time I turn on the TV or radio hear/see a commercial seeking plaintiff's in the Camp LeJune contaminated water case. The law firms are looking for clients who suffered any number of medical injuries - 1 to 30 years later. My question is where are the same dang law firms with the Covid jab cases? There were more injured jab victims in two months than 20 years of Camp LeJune injuries.
And then there's all the asbestos lawsuits, which are still a cash cow for law firms.
Those lawsuits don't just sue the companies that made the asbestos, it's any company that used it or exposed people to it. I don't know why the same legal rationale wouldn't apply to the Covid jabs. That is, you'd have no problem finding defendants even if you couldn't sue Pfizer or Moderna.
I don't know. There's some reason only a few law firms are filing/bringing cases.
Absolutely. Unfortunately, while the Plaintiffs' Bar likes to propagandize itself as 'sticking it to the Man', it is largely the creation of the most amoral and avaricious elements of the profession. They are not lawyers who really give a damn about justice or civil rights etc, just on using those principles if/when it will make them a bunch of $$. Once those guys decide this is a lucrative field to operate in, they will jump on board. But the legal heavy-lifting will first need to be done by those who primarily believe in the cause. It's lawyers like that that need (modest but non-zero financial support from our side.
Hear! Hear! If we are able, let's all support the brave and sincere attorneys and firms. Celebrate them. Thank them. Pray for them. Wish them good luck. The real lawyers are searching for the real truth and trying to deliver justice.
I am thinking the prep act might protect them in a civil case but not a criminal one. The problem will be the AG or DA in that area.
the legal issue is in flux and will continue to be so until SCOTUS addresses it, but decisions like this one suggest the PREP Act won't save them: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0012p-06.pdf
Yes hopefully not. The PREP act violates the 7th amendment too which the USSC is going have to address as well.
Thanks. Establishing a "precedent" is very important. Once all these AWOL trial lawyer firms see that such cases can be won, maybe more of them will start representing injured or wronged clients as well.
Protect the children if nothing else. If we live in a society where the adults don't advocate for the children, we're probably lost. The Covid mortality rate for a healthy child (without "life-altering" medical conditions) is 0.0001 percent, per a UK study I wrote about. That means you have to go out four decimal points to even find a (dubious) risk of death. At three decimal points, the mortality risk is 0.000 percent.
Interesting that the claim is brought by the kids. common sense might suggest that the doctor also perpetrated an injury against their mother too, no?
I hate to sound harsh, but what the heck was this mother thinking? From what I understand, a doctor can not examine a minor without a parent in the room. This story sounds evil and diabolical, and I hope the doctor is given a jail sentence, but the mother should have stayed with them. My son is 17 and our Dr still says I need to stay in the room.
She could have brought the baby in with the other kids.
Need to get this out there. Plz view and share.
David Martin on coronavirus patents and Gain of function research publications.
https://www.youtube.com/live/CMSz209wV8g?feature=share
Thanks Cindy. It's another David Martin knocking it way out of the park!
This is a very important and undeniable reveal by the incomparable David Martin, Ph.D.
If you haven't been steeping yourself in David Martin and his reveals since this drama started 3 years ago you might be wondering about the credentials and wherewithal of this individual.
Please wonder no more. He is arguably the brightest thinker and analyst on the SCV-2 and C-19 tyranny that I know of. Please see for yourselves!
His analysis of the patent history is a start for you if you would like to steep in some vintage David Martin.
For instance, his now 3 year old exposure of US patent #7279327 is another noteworthy reveal. Baric and Yount applied for this patent in 2002. This is the same Baric and Yount of U. of North Carolina who Martin exposes as the real creators of the SCV-2 virus in the video link Cindy has provided. Yes indeed, this all really started back in 2002...over 20 years ago!
You can read about #7279327 here https://archive.org/details/us_patent_7279327
You can also go to this page at the Planet Lockdown website and scroll down through the listing of luminary interviews to get to David Martin's interview if you want to see some vintage David Martin.
https://planetlockdownfilm.com/full-interviews/
The director of the clinic needs to be arrested, then sued.
I hope they get a tremendous settlement and the doctor loses her credentials.