Our Advertisers Represent Some Of The Most Unique Products & Services On Earth!

Misleading - Preliminary Injunction To Halt Mandatory
Flu Vaccination In The US Has Been Issued
From Devvy Kidd
I try to avoid whizzing matches, but this latest post has my blood boiling because it is so misleading. It is also being forwarded all over the Internet as truth. My mail box has been filing up all day with Victory! because of the article linked below.
Reading this article on Natural News.com leads people to believe there was an injunction issued by a Federal Court when the court shows no such action.
At the bottom is email forwarded to me with these headlines:
Preliminary Injunction to Halt Mandatory Flu Vaccination in the U.S. Has Been Issued
"(NaturalNews) -- A Preliminary Injunction to stop mandatory vaccinations has been issued in the United States District Court of New Jersey. This comes after a federal lawsuit opposing forced vaccines was filed in that court by Tim Vawter, pro se attorney, on July 31st with the federal government as defendant. When the judge signs the Preliminary Injunction, it will stop the federal government from forcing anyone in any state to take flu vaccine against their will. It will also prevent a state or local government from forcibly vaccinating anyone, and forbid any person who is not vaccinated from being denied any services or constitutional rights. Vawter's filings included a Complaint, and several pages of evidentiary Exhibits."
I can find zero proof a Priminary Injunction has been issued. Mr. Vawter filed documents with the court, but as of three hours ago, nothing has been issued by a judge and there has been no hearing.
I asked my friend who has been an attorney over 30 years (mostly in the federal courts) and subscribes to PACER to obtain the docket for me so I could verify the claims made in the Natural News piece. He said no injunction has been issued by the court.
But, wait, what does it also say above? "When the judge signs the Preliminary Injunction..." You can't have it both ways. "Has been issued" and "When the judge signs" are two different things in the legal world.
Here is the only action on that case number from the court's own docket:
Date Filed # Docket Text
07/31/2009 1 Complaint Received. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Summons, # 3
Application IFP)(eaj) # 4 Text of Proposed Order) (Entered: 07/31/2009)
07/31/2009 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction To Forbid Forced Flu Vaccinations by
TIM VAWTER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(eaj) (Entered:
07/31/2009)l Query l Reportsv l Utilitiesv l Logout
CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
08/07/2009 3 Letter from Tim Vawter with Exhibit H. (Exhibit H is a DVD and has been forwarded to Chambers) (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Tim Vawter)(gxh)
(Entered: 08/07/2009)
Where is proof stated in the paragraphs below from the Natural News article posted today? Where is notification of a hearing? Where is this order signed by either Judge Joel A. Pisano or Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni? If Ms. Minton, the author of the piece, has such proof, why wasn't it linked in her piece?
Preliminary Injunction will immediately halt mandatory vaccinations in the U.S.
"The Court, having heard the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and read the papers in its support, states in the Preliminary Injunction that it appears the federal government has engaged in some amount of negligence with regards to failure to properly investigate the safety of the flu vaccines scheduled for use in late 2009-2010, and the evidence submitted does warrant a more thorough investigation into the safety of the flu vaccines.
"The Court ordered that the government shall be forbidden from forcing any person to be required to take any influenza vaccination against that person's free will and free choice. The government will not allow any state or local government, or any party, to force any person to be required to take any influenza vaccination against that person's free will and free choice."
"It is further ordered that the government shall not deny any constitutional rights.." What order?
According to the court's own docket, the court has heard nothing. The court has not ordered "the government shall be forbidden...."
The last action listed on the court's docket is by Mr. Vawter on August 7, 2009. A letter forwarded by him to Chambers.
Mr. Vawter filed a set of papers requesting the court stop mandatory vaccinations in the U.S.
There is no such requirement at this time except those covered by the states under their mandatory programs, primarily for health care workers. Neither the CDC, Congress, the usurper president or any other agency has issued a mandatory vaccination order, edit, decree or otherwise for the N1H1 flu.
I wrote a short piece about Mr. Vawter's filing and why I believe the court will throw it out:
This is the direct link to the first set of documents:
Both filings have been given the same case number:
District of New Jersey [LIVE] (Trenton)
At the bottom of the Natural News piece it gives a site which has posted a similar document, but that one is 11 pages plus two pages of exhibits listed; it also calls for monetary damages, the original three page submission does not.
I sent Ms. Minton an email requesting she provide copies of the court order and hearing to substantiate her statements.
Natural News Pulls Article - Apologizes
Preliminary Injunction to Halt Mandatory Flu Vaccination in the U.S. Has Been Issued (correction)
(NaturalNews)  Editor's Note -- It has come to our attention that the following article is factually incorrect. It was written by a contributing writer, then approved by an in-house editor who did not catch the significant errors in this article. As a result of these significant errors, and due to our commitment to publishing only true and accurate information to the best of our ability, we have made an editorial decision to reject further articles from this author.
NaturalNews deeply regrets this unintentional error, and we are brainstorming new ways to put in place tighter fact-checking oversight so that the same mistake does not happen again in the future. We thank all those who have brought this important matter to our attention, and we pledge to increase our efforts to reject stories that contain factual inaccuracies. We only include the full text of the story below so that readers may reference what the original article incorrectly stated, even though we now know the article is factually incorrect. Thank you, - Mike Adams, editor of NaturalNews

Donate to Rense.com
Support Free And Honest
Journalism At Rense.com
Subscribe To RenseRadio!
Enormous Online Archives,
MP3s, Streaming Audio Files, 
Highest Quality Live Programs


This Site Served by TheHostPros