It’s Here: First Court Case Against Mandatory Vaccination: Attorney Interview

In this interview, Spiro is joined by Attorney Ana Garner of New Mexico. Garner represents her client Isaac Legaretta, an officer at the Doña Ana County Detention Center and a military veteran, who is suing the county over its new policy for first responders to receive the COVID-19 vaccinations or face termination. Attorney Garner explains the significance of this case and what is at stake, as it is the first of its kind and may set a new standard for legal precedent regarding mandatory vaccination. Garner says she is prepared to take this case to the Supreme Court if necessary. Spiro and Ana Garner also discuss another case of her’s that is ongoing currently. A case that challenges not only the Governor of New Mexico, but the emergency itself.

For those of you required to take the Covid-19 vaccines to keep your jobs. This is what you can do to protect yourself from mandatory vaccines. I thought this was an interesting find. I don't know if I would sue with a lawyer unless it was under a contingency. If lawyer believes in your case they will put up their own time and money.

It’s Here: First Court Case Against Mandatory Vaccination: Attorney Interview

a reply to: Doctor Smith

You deserve an ATS award for finding IMPORTANT news that our evil Mainstream Media attempts to keep hidden.

Starred & Flagged in gratitude, Doc.

I wonder if there is a legal defense fund to donate to this man's team...


I'd throw money at him after the day I've had..


a reply to: Doctor Smith

International law gives everyone the right to not take a vaccine if they do not want to....but this only pertains to governments mandating it, not private businesses. If you want to work for the company, you might need to take a vaccine. If a business mandates it, you have a choice, get the vaccine and stay, or not get the vaccine and not be eligible to work there, so you get laid off but they cannot fire you. You should qualify for unemployment, if the government does not allow it because of the vaccine denial, the government can be sued.

In Australia, the Advocate Me group has been putting together a lot of legal support for anyone facing any covid legal issues. They have been putting together class actions for those affected and supporting test cases through the courts. Have been recently having success against forced vaccinations, Serene Teffaha would like to hear from anyone facing such issues at work.

Website link

“Gazpacho for everyone!”

Edit: this two-tier caste system of the heavenly vaccinated vs. the seething unvaxxed heathens is gonna be such an epic life story in real-time.

Do we have our yellow starts, we um I mean passport armbands like Israel yet?

I want one. That says unvaxxed. Ima get so much pu**y

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Nice catch Doc.

Rebel-News™ is offering free legal services to some cases, in fighting ridiculous Covid™ fines, in Canada™, UK™, and Australia™.
Is anyone doing this in the USA™ ?

Rebel News™ : Fight the Fines.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Do we understand the idiocy of a person hiring a Attorney in good faith to instruct that Attorney to argue in the presence of the system against the system against a host of issues the system put in place.

May as well just flush your money down the toilet and with it your naive expectations of fairness.

Expecting a outcome other than the system expects is ludicrous sad is that is to say.

Then, why fight against a companies directives who even if shock horror (unlikely) you win they no longer want you there and likely you no longer want to be there anyway.

It's all a show, people just need to say no and walk away if need be ......but most can't can they ??? as now the - "in debt to deep" - can finially see the hold the PTB now have over you when push comes to shove.

This is why you don't over capitalize on expenditures.

People are so lost, this is no case of precedent it just is made to look like it......i wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing is staged.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

I support personal freedom and personal choice, but people who don't want to be vaccinated should at least make it clear to others that they aren't vaccinated. Refusing to confirm your status means that other people cannot make educated choices around them.

If I'm holding a dinner party, I want to know if one of my guests is a vegan before I start cooking, not after I've served the meal.

originally posted by: slatesteam

I want one. That says unvaxxed. Ima get so much pu**y

Considering the antivax movement is very much a minority, I really doubt that.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Doctor Smith

I support personal freedom and personal choice, but people who don't want to be vaccinated should at least make it clear to others that they aren't vaccinated. Refusing to confirm your status means that other people cannot make educated choices around them.

If I'm holding a dinner party, I want to know if one of my guests is a vegan before I start cooking, not after I've served the meal.

Kinda contradictive isn't it? You support personal freedom and freedom of choice but only if they advertise it????
Sounds borderline 1940s to me.

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: slatesteam

I want one. That says unvaxxed. Ima get so much pu**y

Considering the antivax movement is very much a minority, I really doubt that.

You'll find it's not a antivax movement it's a anti cv19 vax movement......theres a very big difference you know.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Excellent find! Thanks!

Just wait...it won't be long before every other commercial on TV is some legal firm telling you to call them... "If you're one of the millions of Americans who have been negatively affected by the Covid-19 Vaccine. Call 1-800-GET-RICH, that's 1-800-GET-RICH. Call now!"

(Just like Mesothelioma now)

a reply to: AaarghZombies
Kinda like walking into a bar and asking everyone with an STD to raise their hand.

But which is more socially acceptable?

I'm not trying to nitpick, but this kinda just jumped out at me...


I find it interesting that she says [@12:10], "Now we're gonna face a big problem when these injectibles are finally approved. That concerns me, but we have to fight the battle here first, and we hope that by doing this it gives us some traction when we have to go fight the battle when they are approved medical products."

I know this is only an interview and not the trial, but I don't think it's a very good idea for her to speak like that ever, since the basis of the case relies on the fact that it is still unknown whether or not the 'vaccine' will eventually be officially approved. She makes it a point to refer to it as an 'injectible', instead of calling it a 'vaccine'. So then by using the word 'when' instead of 'if', just seems slightly contradictory to me.

I just think that's a mistake she can't really afford to make, since there will be many people whom do not want this case to be won, and set a precedent.

She needs to not say that again. EVER! This case must be won.

Thank you Doctor.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

If those who have taken the injection had actually practiced "informed consent" in accordance with the law, they would know they have not been vaccinated. They have been injected with mRNA and no immunity to coronavirus is conferred by the shot.

They don't know, and don't care.

For those not taking the shot, they are cautious and likely informed.

originally posted by: rickymouse
International law gives everyone the right to not take a vaccine if they do not want to....but this only pertains to governments mandating it, not private businesses. If you want to work for the company, you might need to take a vaccine. If a business mandates it, you have a choice, get the vaccine and stay, or not get the vaccine and not be eligible to work there, so you get laid off but they cannot fire you. You should qualify for unemployment, if the government does not allow it because of the vaccine denial, the government can be sued.

I do find it funny that the 'private business' argument is used so much these days.
I get what you are saying, but wonder where the line is drawn. How much can a company violate a person's human rights in the name of their 'private company status'?
I mean, could they mandate that no one is allowed to have an abortion who works for them? My body, my choice, right? Apparently not when it comes to having a needle with an unknown substance shoved in your arm because the Govt says it's necessary.

originally posted by: rickymouse
International law gives everyone the right to not take a vaccine if they do not want to....but this only pertains to governments mandating it, not private businesses. If you want to work for the company, you might need to take a vaccine. If a business mandates it, you have a choice, get the vaccine and stay, or not get the vaccine and not be eligible to work there, so you get laid off but they cannot fire you. You should qualify for unemployment, if the government does not allow it because of the vaccine denial, the government can be sued.

So Governance via proxy. Government isn’t mandating speech. Government isn’t mandating vaccines. It’s all just the private businesses. Respect business rights to follow oppressive governmental policies!!!

originally posted by: Rob808

originally posted by: rickymouse
International law gives everyone the right to not take a vaccine if they do not want to....but this only pertains to governments mandating it, not private businesses. If you want to work for the company, you might need to take a vaccine. If a business mandates it, you have a choice, get the vaccine and stay, or not get the vaccine and not be eligible to work there, so you get laid off but they cannot fire you. You should qualify for unemployment, if the government does not allow it because of the vaccine denial, the government can be sued.

So Governance via proxy. Government isn’t mandating speech. Government isn’t mandating vaccines. It’s all just the private businesses. Respect business rights to follow oppressive governmental policies!!!

"an officer at the Doña Ana County Detention Center" Doesn't sound like a private business. He works for the government, unless that is a private prison.