4 Comments

Good luck!

We need lawyers to challenge the current ASSumption that Jacobson allowed for work and school restrictions.

It did not. It just allowed for a fine but somehow they all slept on the job and let it morph into this authoritarian bullshit.

And instead of stating the fact that Jacobson says a fine is ok, lawyers are fighting whether Jacobson stands or trying to get laws passed that stop COVID shot mandates without addressing the elephant in the room.

Another aspect that isn't addressed is that even though the mandates were according to the FDA rush approved shots, those shots, Corninarty and Spikevax have never been available in the US. So technically, they mandated a shot that doesn't exist and all of the medical morons gave you the eua shot, thinking it's the same thing. It's not the same thing legally.

It's a huge grift.

Expand full comment
author

Leslie Manookian of HEALTH FREEDOM DEFENSE FUND has had a huge victory in the 9th Circuit striking at the heart of Jacobson:

See more here: https://teachersforchoice.substack.com/p/victory-in-9th-circuit-against-covid

Expand full comment

No, they won because the argument was that the COVID shots didn't stop transmission etc. They fought that Jacobson didn't apply.

They didn't make the case that Jacobson would only give a fine.

Here's an interesting paper on the mythology around Jacobson that still lawyers and judges abide by...

https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4934&context=buffalolawreview

Meanwhile, it's still used for flu shots and other shots that are still mandated for kids and health workers.

Until the lawyers make it clear that Jacobson only allowed for a fine, we're gonna keep going back to court fighting future bullshit mandates.

Expand full comment
author

They made the fine argument as well, but i don't know if the court referenced that in their decision.

Expand full comment