- 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
- 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
- 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 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction To Forbid
Forced Flu Vaccinations by
- TIM VAWTER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(eaj)
- 07/31/2009)l Query l Reportsv l Utilitiesv l Logout
- CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of
- 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)
- CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:09-cv-03803-JAP-TJB
- VAWTER v. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
- 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