|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By John Klar
An ongoing national legal dispute regarding vaccinations of children with COVID-19 shots concerns whether school officials are immune from traditional legal claims — particularly, battery — when administering Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) shots without parental consent. North Carolina’s Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of parents for violating their informed consent rights in violation of a state statute. Still, even that court denied common law state claims for battery — the physical touching of another against their will. The mainstream media has gaslit parents, claiming that public schools cannot legally force-vaccinate their children. But unless the child suffers serious bodily injury or death, they most certainly can under current rulings.
I represented the Politella family before the U.S. Supreme Court, which on February 24 declined to hear our Petition for Writ of Certiorari challenging a Vermont Supreme Court ruling that my clients, whose six-year-old son was vaccinated with a COVID-19 shot despite their clear wishes that he not be, had no right to sue for common law battery. Vermont’s Supreme Court decided that my clients’ rights are eclipsed by the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, which provides legal immunity to pharmaceutical companies and those administering shots related to these experimental vaccines. The Act allows a federal administrative remedy only in the event the shot is 1) administered “willfully,” and 2) causes “death or serious bodily injury.”
In the absence of the PREP Act, parents could sue for traditional damages if their child is given medical treatments without their consent. The Vermont Court did not consider constitutional liberties to parental control or bodily integrity. This led to claims that the court’s ruling would permit forced jabs absent death or serious bodily injury, prompting a slew of national media outlets to “rate” that claim as “false.”
But it isn’t false — it is the law. Maine’s highest court recently joined the Vermont Supreme Court’s determination in Hogan v. Lincoln Medical Partners, ruling that the parents of a five-year-old who was administered a COVID-19 vaccine without their consent had no legal recourse for that battery without death or bodily injury resulting. The Maine court went further than Vermont, ruling that neither constitutional rights to bodily integrity nor parental consent were unconstitutionally infringed by their interpretation of the PREP Act. There is no distinction in this construction of federal law between a forced jab done deliberately versus a negligent mistake.
As I explained in an analysis for the Brownstone Institute, several national media outlets, including the Associated Press, USA Today, and Snopes, claimed it was not true that schools could force-jab children under these rulings. But this was media misinformation, as demonstrated in the language of the March 21, 2025 North Carolina decision Happel v. Guilford County Board of Education:
“….the bodily integrity right is not absolute. Courts across the United States have overwhelmingly held that the fundamental right to refuse medical treatment does not imply a fundamental right to disregard a vaccine mandate.”
The Happel court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s state battery claims. The concurring opinion expressed concern that forced jabs (“intentional torts”) are thus sanctioned:
“The government’s reading of the Act appears to override state consent laws such that intentional torts may be cloaked with immunity when the harm inflicted falls short of death or serious physical injury… But shouldn’t immunity under the PREP Act be predicated on a lawful administration of a covered countermeasure?
“Consider the following: you’re waiting for your morning coffee at the local café. While standing with other customers, a healthcare official authorized to administer a covered countermeasure walks in and injects everyone in the coffee shop without asking or otherwise obtaining consent. All have been the victim of a battery. But under the government’s reading of the PREP Act, unless death or serious physical injury results, the healthcare worker has blanket immunity for these intentional acts.
The author is a Brookfield best-selling author, lawyer, farmer and pastor.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, Court, Health Care
The answer is “NO” -D Morrisseau
Yet, in Burlington several months ago, somebody attempted to stab a police officer with a needle and was promptly arrested for aggravated assault.
Thank you for standing up for this child and his parents. The pattern here is declare an “emergency” and voila the state is immune from upholding basic human rights as enumerated in places like our constitution and the Geneva conventions of the WWII era:
“In essence, the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Code, along with international human rights law, establish a strong framework for protecting individuals from medical experimentation without their consent, particularly during wartime. ”
the whole covid vaccination debacle conducted under emergency use authorization led to wholesale violations of these human rights. Largest uncontrolled medical experimentation that has proved to be lethal and unethical. I call this kind of coercion fascist.
When it is an emergency the control freaks and cave monkeys show their true colors. Most all have stocks in big pharma.
I’m afraid the courts, including the SCOTUS, have members who are, from time to time, capitulating (a euphemistic characterization to be sure) to political pressure from powerful special interest groups in what I’m guessing is a misguided attempt to avoid conflict.
They’ve done this before with regard to our personal constitutional rights, most infamously with the 1857 Dred Scott decision, ruling that African Americans could not be considered citizens and therefore had no right to sue in federal court.
Technically, the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision has never been judicially overturned, despite Congress’ passage of the 13th Amendment in 1865, 14th Amendment in 1868, and 15th Amendment in 1870. Some legal scholars contend that the Dred Scott decision was actually strengthened in 1873 by the SCOTUS ruling on the Slaughterhouse Cases that limited the protection of the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment.
Clearly, our courts are comprised of imperfect people. And aren’t we all? What concerns me today is that the result of the Dred Scott point of view is being replicated once again, and the result will be the same disastrous conflict as was the case in 1857.
If I may again cite the words of a person wiser than I.
‘Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’ – George Santayana
If I had children in the public-school monopoly today, I would get them out as soon as practicably possible. Human nature, being what it is, and especially in times of stress, is not only unpredictable, it’s decidedly dangerous.
So much for choice and no means NO – eh?
However, we can’t have them taught about Jesus. Think about the uproar across the nation if we held bible study, the reading of John and the Book of Acts.
We can jab them with experimental drugs; while suggesting they have organic foods, we can teach them about and show them all sorts of sexual things, but we can’t teach them about Jesus Christ. Just today we are petitioning for fertility to be covered under health care, but our constitution clearly says that Is NOT a baby inside.
Think about the compare and contrast, then ask yourself, well who would want to do this? Who would want all these lies for truth? Who is the father of all lies?
Marxism is about power, money and control, we are ruled by those under the spell of Marxism and its father.
Montpelier believes they own your children. They do not, we are a child of God. Until we claim our rightful father we’ll be ruled and governed, they will do whatever they like to your children….
Vermont needs a change in direction. We are going down the wrong road.
Question?
Why would so many people be averse to being introduced and learn about Jesus Christ?
What did he do that people wouldn’t want you to know about him?
Why do dictators not allow the bible in their country?
Why do theocracies not allow their people to have a bible?
Why?
What is so offensive?
Why does Montpelier keep Jesus under wraps?
Whom is Montpelier aligning themselves with?
Interesting times, for sure.
Fear not, fear not, he’s already won, he’s in control.
no more , my body, my chpice
Mr. Klar makes the case for keeping your children out of public school and away from big pharma doctors who use the law to abuse you and your children. Vermont is a sick state. I lost two of my family to the covid poison clot shot, one was only 37 years old and ended up dying in her father’s arms from a pulmonary embolism caused by the “vaccine”. The other was denied cancer treatment unless he took the poison and the poison filled him with so many blood clots he died withing two weeks. His wife, my sister, took the shot in sympathy with her husband and two weeks after he died she suffered a blood clot causing a heart attack. She survived the surgery but remains ill.
The laws in Vermont must be changed to stop these attacks on our bodies.
Vermont needs to rid itself of the democrat/communist/fascist left.