Court rules employer liable for forced experimental genitic therapy

One guy had two jabs, felt bad, forced to take another to keep his job and now has pericarditis. When to court, was found that the employer has some responsibility.

www.lifesitenews.com... rce=most_recent&utm_campaign=usa

With how this is playing out, it's gonna be a long game. The pressure is building towards those accountable.

originally posted by: kwaka
One guy had two jabs, felt bad, forced to take another to keep his job and now has pericarditis. When to court, was found that the employer has some responsibility.

www.lifesitenews.com... rce=most_recent&utm_campaign=usa

With how this is playing out, it's gonna be a long game. The pressure is building towards those accountable.

My employer's HR manager in the USA pulled this crap as well. Except 5 days before their deadline to be jabbed, the court here deemed it all unconstitutional so my employer decided to not enforce it as a condition of employment.

And then a few months later everyone got Covid anyway. The fools who believed the jabs would work got Covid more than once.

The left wing government authorities of the world do not want to govern, they only want to control people. Controlling others is the only thing they really are doing.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

My sister was staunchly against this jab for the obvious reasons. Her employer forced her to take the shot, and a couple days after she did, they dropped the mandate due to the same reasons. it was too late for her, so now we can only hope the fears and worries were misplaced. But like this OP explains, it's the long game, so is being concerned about negative effects of the jab. Nobody knows if there will be issues because of this down the road.

And before its asked, she has a condition that requires medicine that is hugely expensive and she could not afford to quit and deal with her illness without insurance. I tried to get her to deny the shot and if she got canned for it, sue them later when others did and get her job back with back pay. But I understood why she did what she did.

This is good! (not good that he now has the problems of course)

It not only holds the companies liable for the mandate, but admits the problem caused by the vaccine itself.

Hope more countries go this way.

My wife worked at a Music Co in Nashville. They insisted all the employees take the jab or not come to work. When my wife refused on ground it violated her personal beliefs they asked her if she ever took the flu shot and she said NO. Well, that made them stop dead in their tracks and they later "retired" her with a better pension than we thought she was going to receive so we would just go away. The company laid of others who were doing all they had to do to come into the office, making it real smart on their part. But they didn't want her back in the building without the Covid jab, bottom line.

a reply to: chiefsmom

Hope more countries go this way.

A precedent has been set. In the legal arguments, the government also has a big chunk to answer, for now it is a grass roots campaign chipping away at the edges. The employer is also responsible for pushing it on its employees.

With the way things are going, it going to take a while to work its way up the chain. Some places will do better than others on these issues. With industrial levels of dollars now on this campaign it will pick up. While the winners may blur history in their direction, the tales of the dark ages still live on.

originally posted by: AnotherJustoneman
My wife worked at a Music Co in Nashville. They insisted all the employees take the jab or not come to work. When my wife refused on ground it violated her personal beliefs they asked her if she ever took the flu shot and she said NO. Well, that made them stop dead in their tracks and they later "retired" her with a better pension than we thought she was going to receive so we would just go away. The company laid of others who were doing all they had to do to come into the office, making it real smart on their part. But they didn't want her back in the building without the Covid jab, bottom line.

that's a positive outcome in a bad situation. I'm glad it worked out for your family. Enjoy her retirement. (get her busy doing something, or she will find things for you to do.)

a reply to: network dude
I am still working, analyzing pollution data and she is driving me nuts concentrating on cleaning now. Before, we hired a maid once a week to come in. After Covid I got a Howard Hughes type. AND she still gets the same cold the rest of the family gets.

Yes, we got lucky. The others back at her office are wanting the same deal and they would retire now.

My granddaughter had a trip to Costa Rica (arranged by her high school Spanish class) all paid for when Covid hit. Departue date was the following year, and she received notice that she could get apply for a refund or get fully vaxxed if she still wanted to go.
Her mother let her decide, and of course she chose the vaccine. I worry about long-term ramifications now, especially cancer and reproductive issues.
I had to bite my tongue when asked my opinion; I know her well enough to know what her decision would be regaurdless of my input, so I chose to be supportive and tell her I would support whatever she decided; that I just wish there had been more testing and thought requiring vaccination wasn't fair. Heck, everything from talcum powder to food additives to GMO's is going to ensure a shortened life filled with health problems anyway so I chose to know my place and stay in my own lane.

Sometimes all you can do is pray.

SO many 'safe and effective' drugs and chemicals get recalled 20, 30, 40 years being approved by the FDA-and more often than not the dangers were apparent when the FDA approved them. Paper trails often show how it was falisgied 'scientific' data and big bucks spent on bribing (lobbying) that got them approved in the first place.

a reply to: network dude

"Nobody knows if there will be issues because of this down the road."

That's an awful thought; I'd thought that the further in time we get away from this without complications, the less likely complications would be.

Guess I'm wrong about that.

a reply to: kwaka


If an employer liable. Does not a government become liable. Is this what they want.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: kwaka


If an employer liable. Does not a government become liable. Is this what they want.

My thoughts too. The government pushed this in the first place , they are as much , if not more liable.
They are trying to shove that responsiblity of to small businesses it seems, hoping these businesses will fail in one go (part of their plans to eliminate the middle and upper middle class of the 99%).

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: kwaka


If an employer liable. Does not a government become liable. Is this what they want.

Governments legislated these behaviors, but of course they themselves do not want to be liable, just like the drug companies, so it falls on someone other than them, which in this case is the employers. Perfect for the gov't and drug companies.

originally posted by: Thefineblackharm

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: kwaka


If an employer liable. Does not a government become liable. Is this what they want.

Governments legislated these behaviors, but of course they themselves do not want to be liable, just like the drug companies, so it falls on someone other than them, which in this case is the employers. Perfect for the gov't and drug companies.

If the government is held liable, how does that work?

Do they pay people out? Because that’s just us paying ourselves out with our own tax money after waste. So we’d hand off a dollar to ourself and then later receive a quarter.

Or are certain decision makers held liable? If so, which ones?

Very nice logic.

These businesses, some now being ordered to pay out, were afraid to open doors to people without the vax.

originally posted by: ScarletDarkness

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: kwaka


If an employer liable. Does not a government become liable. Is this what they want.

My thoughts too. The government pushed this in the first place , they are as much , if not more liable.
They are trying to shove that responsiblity of to small businesses it seems, hoping these businesses will fail in one go (part of their plans to eliminate the middle and upper middle class of the 99%).

a reply to: kwaka

It’s good that we are starting to see rulings like this.

Bill Gates: Rushed marketing of jabs means accepting unknown longer term health risks (Apr. 2020)

rumble.com...

FLASHBACK : BILL GATES TELLS VIEWS TO IGNORE LIFE THREATENING SIDE OF EFFECTS OF HIS NEW :CORONAVAX:

www.bitchute.com...

I originally found these videos on YouTube but they were deleted due to breaking the terms of service. LOL

originally posted by: Cvastar
a reply to: network dude

"Nobody knows if there will be issues because of this down the road."

That's an awful thought; I'd thought that the further in time we get away from this without complications, the less likely complications would be.

Guess I'm wrong about that.

we just don't know. I hope it's all just misplaced paranoia. But since there is no track record to base this on, we just don't know until we do. I still believe there was something nefarious going on which made them try to mandate everyone getting it. Perhaps it was just to see if they could do it, or perhaps there was something in the shot that shouldn't have been.

originally posted by: NorthOS
a reply to: kwaka


I originally found these videos on YouTube but they were deleted due to breaking the terms of service. LOL

Yes, communist-controlled YouTube removes anything that disrupts the narrative. Here's a clip I wish would get wider recognition - Australian Senator Malcom Roberts calling out the deep state in no uncertain terms. I hope he doesn't get suicided.

BITCHUTE

a reply to: network dude
If your sister is interested, here's a website called: How Bad Is My Batch

There's a page where you can put in the batch number of the vaccine/s you received (the number should be on the vaccine card given at time of injection), and it will bring up the percentages of injuries reported by those who received the same batch you did.

It's a bit harder to navigate the website now than back when I checked my family's numbers, but if you read the page linked, you'll see where to click.

Prayer said for your sister.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

My sister was staunchly against this jab for the obvious reasons. Her employer forced her to take the shot, and a couple days after she did, they dropped the mandate due to the same reasons. it was too late for her, so now we can only hope the fears and worries were misplaced. But like this OP explains, it's the long game, so is being concerned about negative effects of the jab. Nobody knows if there will be issues because of this down the road.

And before its asked, she has a condition that requires medicine that is hugely expensive and she could not afford to quit and deal with her illness without insurance. I tried to get her to deny the shot and if she got canned for it, sue them later when others did and get her job back with back pay. But I understood why she did what she did.

Sorry to hear that about your sister. Being forced into these things is traumatic enough, then to only have a court stop it after the fact, even though we all knew it was wrong and unconstitutional in the first place really adds a lot more injury to it.
I was literally a couple days away from doing the same thing. Was surprised my employer decided to honor the supreme court decision, then they announced on our company messaging system this. Quite a few people only got the jab days before because they were going to fire people that didnt.

The entire thing being done proves our leaders are mostly only interested in control, and not governing or serving the people.

This court ruling should help in other lawsuits against any employer that jumped on the control freak team bandwagon.

Just having to comply and getting it or be fired should be deemed an injury in and of itself and liable for damages. No idea if a lawyer could make that work though.