Statement on Windham Superior Court Judge Michael Kainen’s decision on the dismissal of parents lawsuit on school administering covid 19 gene therapy vaccine without parental consent and against their explicit wishes.
The parents of an elementary school child brought suit against the Windham Southeast (Vermont) School District when their child received the Covid Vaccine,
A. Against their explicit instructions and B. Without parental consent.
The Judge, in ruling for the defendant, cited the 2005 PREP Act, which shields officials from liability who are “administering “countermeasures” in response to a public health emergency.” This decision sets a dangerous precedent of overreach, in particular for a case that was clear cut: The parents were given a choice of whether their child would be vaccinated at the school on site clinic, they declined, their child was then vaccinated. The school cited a clerical error admitting the mistake and the family acted within their rights to hold them accountable.
The judge’s decision and use of the 2005 PREP Act, in order to protect the school district from any liability fails on two fronts;
The children at the school were not required to be injected with the Covid-19 vaccine in order to attend; these clinics were set up in schools for those parents who decided they wanted their child to access the human trials portion of the vaccine … Parents were sent documents to review and sign, documents which included liability waivers and permission slips. The vaccines were therefore optional.
A public health emergency so dire as to invoke the PREP ACT, acting as a necessary shield from liability, should instead have prompted the closure of the school itself. Instead, schools remained open, with mitigation procedures in place. (If, in fact, one can argue, given the questionable nature of recent data on the general ineffectiveness of masking, that these “mitigation procedures” achieved any level of effectiveness)
What is becoming apparent is the many government officials, including judges across the country, at all levels, continue to legislate/litigate based on data about Covid 19, and the subsequent efficacy of the vaccine; based on the limited data of the FDA, NIAID, in addition to the marketing campaigns that invested corporate media outlets continue to espouse. These talking points function only to scare people into constant compliance despite data and evidence that show the results of these practices do not prevent the spread of covid 19.
We have an expectation that our officials, in particularjudges, are capable of maintaining objectivity. The citizenry expects the judiciary to cast aside personal perspectives and bias, particularly on an issue as divisive as the covid measures and mass covid vaccinations. Parents, hesitant about the prospect of injecting their child with an untested and experimental vaccination, thrust onto the market in less than a year, and free from all liability, deserve the right to bodily autonomy. It is the view of the Libertarian Party of Vermont, that the Judiciary has found itself unduly influenced by a morass of overwhelming propaganda, a function and extension of the culture wars that have dominated the Legislature & Executive branches of government, serving only to extending & sowing division and rancor into public health.
Parents have had children released from custody, suffered the loss of parental visitations rights, and had children vaccinated against their consent because activist judges, prejudiced in their paranoia, are disseminating a brand of justice that continues to serve the pharmaceutical industry while shielding state actors, in this case a school district, from any responsibility and culpability for a mistake they admitted to committing.
What recompense do parents have when the state and large corporations are immune from any liability, effectively immunized and protected by the courts?