Bright Spot With Liability Immunity

This isn't a full 'win', but there may be an angle against vaccine and mask mandates.
The guest in this Stew Peters interview explains that public officials are actually licensed and bonded, and its through their bond that they are personally liable.

If true, its a real good thing:
stateofthenation.co...

a reply to: Wisenox

I'm not sure that is the case from my research. It's important to note that federal officials/employees are prohibited from obtaining a bond (31 U.S.C. § 9302 (2006)).

These bonds are commonly required by statute and create a three-party relationship more common in the context of surety bonds. Also frequently discussed in the context of public officials are public employee dishonesty coverages and similar fidelity policies. These instruments typically include the traditional two-party relationship where the insurer issues a policy or bond agreeing with the insured to indemnify the insured for certain losses arising from the dishonesty or other enumerated conduct of its employees

My understanding is that the conduct has to be enumerated within the statutes/code that that particular official falls under.

A public officials bond refers to an instrument “by which a public officer and a secondary obligor undertake to pay up to a fixed sum of money if the officer does not faithfully discharge the duties of his or her office.” A statutory public officials bond is thus a public officials bond mandated by statute. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “official bond” as “a bond given by a public officer, conditioned on the faithful performance of the duties of office.” In the three-party surety structure, the public official is the principal, the bonding company is the surety (sometimes called the secondary obligor), and the government or, in many cases, the public being served by the official is the obligee

The key phrase there is "faithfully" which may be pretty hard to prove that the official wasn't faithful. But the question I would posit would be faithful to whom? The government could say that the official was being faithful to what they were ordered to do. I would bet that the burden of proof would be on the plaintiff.

Two other bits of information about bonds:

The Public Officials bond is commonly issued to protect against conduct or omissions by the named public official that constitutes a breach of the public official’s duties of office. As is discussed in more detail below, these bonds guarantee against more than the public official’s fraud or dishonesty and, in certain cases, can cover loss arising from neglect or omissions.

Below, the bond is intended to protect the citizens from a suit. Emphasis mine.

A Public Officials bond may be issued for the benefit of the governmental unit in which the principal holds office, but also it can provide coverage to the general public. The Bond is “in the nature of an Indemnity Bond rather than a Penal or Forfeiture Bond; it is, in effect, a contract between the officer and the government, binding the officer to discharge the duties of his or her office.” The Official Bond is not intended to protect the principal or the public official himself but rather is intended to protect the city or the entire citizenship served by the official.

Link to PDF

a reply to: billxam

I don't know much about it, but the jurisdiction created by the codes and statutes assigned to the individual may be why the video associated it with schools, rather than all officials.
It would still be good because it would make others consider their actions and possible liabilities also. There's bound to be some crack in the liability somewhere.

I also think there's a possibility that the immunity creates a problem later; especially, with doctors and nurses.
If the vaccines are causing death, then life insurance companies are going to do everything in their power to not pay. If the people don't have a legal system that works for them, they may go with the eye for an eye style justice.