A Motion to have forced vaccination deemed Unconstitutional has been filed with the Department of Justice at the US District Court of New Jersey by Tim Vawter.
The federal court papers were filed with the court on July 31. 2009. VAWTER v. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Some of the legal documents can be seen with security borders here: (click here and scroll down)
After filing a Complaint, which initiated the lawsuit, Vawter — acting on behalf of Elizabeth Book who founded the organisation Citizens Against Forced Vaccination and who raised the funds — last week filed the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which explained the reasons why the injunction against forced mass vaccination was needed. He also presented the Injunction itself. However, this won’t technically be considered filed until the court examines all the evidence submitted, and then rules on the Injunction.
In addtion, Vawter filed the Exhibits with the court, which are true copies of articles containing evidence to support the claims made in the Complaint and Motion.
Vawter successfully sued a large insurance company (Vawter vs Wausau Ins co. U.S.D.N.J. Civil #95-5620 and #96-3618, and U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd circuit #96-5463).
A check, money order or cash to help either the lawsuit work or the criminal complaint work can also be sent to Elizabeth Book, PO Box 102, Ormand Beach, FL 32175.
Though this injunction could be helpful as a model for similar legal action in other countries, it needs to be adapated as every country generally has its own slightly different rules for filing a lawsuit.
An injunction is temporary. It is the lawsuit itself which must be conducted to forbid forced vaccinations. An injunction can prevent vaccinations for, say, a 10 day period, where we then submit another injunction for another 10 days.
What Vawter is, therefore, also filing is a document that asks to have the law deemed unconstitutional which requires forced vaccinations for everyone, and in his Complaint he made mention of that.
To file a Complaint, the person must have suffered damages, but to have a law deemed unconstitutional, the person doesn’t. He or she states the damages are pending, that he or she will suffer damages from the law unless it is deemed unconstitutional and amended.
No comments:
Post a Comment