As a legacy American, you may still suffer from the delusion that you have ultimate authority over what drugs the government is or is not allowed to give your child while in its custody in public schools.
The federal courts would like to disabuse you of that notion.
Related: CDC-Recommended Double COVID/Flu Shots Induce Strokes
Here’s what happened in a nutshell, the facts of which were not disputed by the school system:
- Vermont parents Dario and Shujen Politella, in November 2021, explicitly warned the school where their six-year-old child attended, Academy School in Brattleboro, that he was not to receive the experimental gene therapy marketed as a “vaccine”
- An unidentified worker at the school’s “vaccination clinic” gave the shot to the kid anyway
- After the parents found out, the school wrote a letter to the parents stating the administration was “deeply sorry that this mistake happened, and have worked internally to improve our screening procedures.”
- The parents filed suit in state court
- The Vermont Supreme Court, on appeal, ruled in favor of the school district, arguing that it is immune from liability because of an obscure 2005 federal law that grants emergency powers to the government in times of declared emergencies, such as COVID-19.
Via VT Digger (emphasis added):
The Vermont Supreme Court on Friday affirmed a lower court decision that the state and the Windham Southeast Supervisory Union were immune from legal challenges brought by the parents of a student who received a Covid-19 vaccine against their wishes.
The litigation, brought against the state and the school district two years ago by Dario and Shujen Politella, claimed the defendants were not immune from legal challenges. Workers at a vaccination clinic held at the Academy School in Brattleboro in November 2021, the Politellas’ suit argued, were negligent when they mixed up name tags and mistakenly administered a Covid-19 shot to their child, who was 6 years old at the time.
Mark Speno, the Windham Southeast superintendent, later wrote to the parents that school officials were “deeply sorry that this mistake happened, and have worked internally to improve our screening procedures.”…
The litigation centers around the federal PREP Act, a 2005 law that provides immunity from liability to government officials administering “countermeasures” in response to a public health emergency — in this case, a vaccine against the Covid-19 virus that had caused a global pandemic starting in early 2020.
The Politellas and their attorney, Ronald Ferrara, argued that the PREP Act did not provide blanket immunity in this case, and said that the alleged negligence of the school district and the state’s clinic workers was subject to damages.
“Alleged negligence” is far too weaselly; the school copped to the “negligence,” and, if it is said to be “negligence,” it should be criminal negligence that requires criminal and civil penalties, neither of which, it seems the parents of the now-vaccinated boy will ever see.
The notorious “fact check” scammers at Snopes issued one of their trademark screeds in defense of the pharmaceutical industry and government in response to online outrage over the ruling, arguing that shooting up kids against the expressed wishes of their parents was an “accident” and did not rise to the level of “willful misconduct,” which would be required to reap any civil damages under the 2005 PREP Act, which otherwise grants blanket immunity to schools to do whatever they like.
Via Snopes (emphasis added):
According to the ruling, the father spoke to the school's principal a few days before the clinic, reiterating that his child was not to be vaccinated. The principal acknowledged this and confirmed his son would not be vaccinated without the parents' consent.
However, on the day of the clinic, "an unidentified worker" incorrectly gave the child the name tag of another student. As a result, the child was vaccinated with the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine and the family then sued the school district.
In July 2024, the court said that, under federal law, the lawsuit could not proceed. Citing the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005, the court ruled the school was immune from prosecution. Indeed, the PREP Act does provide "liability immunity to certain individuals and entities (Covered Persons) against any claim of loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the manufacture, distribution, administration, or use of medical countermeasures (Covered Countermeasures), except for claims involving 'willful misconduct' as defined in the PREP Act."
In other words, during public health emergencies, the PREP Act protects people whose job it is to implement measures — such as vaccines and vaccination campaigns — designed to counteract these emergencies, from legal consequences…
In order for the lawsuit to have proceeded, the plaintiffs needed to prove the workers were guilty of "willful misconduct," or the incident happened outside the timeframe of this public health emergency.
So let it be known: “vaccination centers” that are somehow allowed to set up shop in public schools can get away with anything under color of law, so long as they categorize it as an “accident.”
