Tag: lawsuits

California Hospital Concealed Evidence Linking ‘Catastrophic Surge’ in Stillbirths to COVID Vaccine, Lawsuit Alleges

A California hospital concealed data linking a “catastrophic surge” in stillbirths among women who received COVID-19 vaccines, according to a lawsuit filed last week in the Superior Court of California, Fresno County.

Michelle Spencer, a nurse at Community Medical Centers’ (CMC) Community Regional Medical Center, said the hospital “deliberately and selectively” concealed from staff, patients and regulators a spike in unborn baby deaths that began in spring 2021, and retaliated against her when she publicized the information.

The lawsuit also says the hospital concealed medical data related to the fetal deaths that showed a link to COVID-19 vaccination of pregnant mothers.

The data include hospital-wide medical records documenting the number of stillbirths and the vaccination histories of those babies’ mothers. One managing nurse at the hospital told a staff member that nearly all of the stillbirths occurred among vaccinated mothers.

According to the complaint, Spencer “witnessed firsthand the exponential increase in unborn baby deaths directly correlating with pregnant women who received a Covid vaccine and then would deliver a dead baby a close number of days or weeks following their injection.”

Keep reading

Lawsuit: The Regulation Of Untaxed Firearms Under Federal Law Is Unconstitutional

Several Second Amendment advocacy groups, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), have filed a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).

President Trump’s One Big, Beautiful Bill erased the NFA’s $200 stamp tax on short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, any firearm classified by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) as “other,” and suppressors starting Jan. 1, 2026. However, “the firearms are still required to be registered and are subject to” regulations designed to enforce the “now-extinct” tax, the lawsuit says. This “regulatory regime” no longer comports with Congress’ constitutional authority, plaintiffs claim. The lawsuit also argues that “the NFA’s regulation of suppressors and short-barreled rifles violates the Second Amendment.”

“The National Firearms Act’s registration scheme only exists to ensure that the tax on NFA firearms was paid,” Adam Kraut, the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) executive director, said in a press release. “With Congress removing the tax on silencers, short-barreled firearms, and ‘any other weapons,’ the continued inclusion of these items in the NFA serves no purpose, except continuing to retain an impermissible hurdle to the exercise of one’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”

The lawsuit, Brown v. ATF, was filed on August 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiffs are the NRA, the American Suppressor Association (ASA), SAF, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique, and two individual members of these organizations. They are suing both the ATF and the DOJ. The lawsuit asks the court to declare NFA regulations “relating to making, transferring, receiving, possessing, or otherwise using” the untaxed firearms and suppressors unlawful and to block anyone from enforcing the challenged portions of the law.

Keep reading

Prepare For A Wave Of State Court Battles Over Men In Women’s Sports

With the federal route closed under the Trump administration, transgender males seeking admission to women’s sports are turning to state courts. There, fuzzy and sometimes absurd definitions in state and local policies might still force sports organizations to deny the reality of male advantage and surrender competitive fairness and safety for female athletes.

Two trans-identifying male athletes are suing sporting event organizers after being told that they were not permitted to compete in the female category. One suit is in New York, and the other in New Jersey. The same lawyer, Susan Cirilli, is representing both plaintiffs. Cirilli did not respond to my request for comment.

The New Jersey Lawsuit

In New Jersey, Sadie Schreiner is suing Princeton University, two of Princeton’s senior athletics administrators, and the timing and results company from the track meet in early May. Schreiner alleges that, despite registering for and checking in as present to compete in the women’s 200-meter race, he was not on the list of competitors posted shortly before the race.

Schreiner spoke with John Mack and Kimberly Keenan-Kirkpatrick, Princeton’s director of athletics and director of track and field operations, respectively. According to Schreiner’s suit, one of them (the filing does not specify), said, “I do not want to assume, but you are transgender” to explain why Schreiner was not in the women’s race. Keenan-Kirkpatrick then offered to organize a separate race for Schreiner, a consideration the suit describes as “a further biased response.”

“State anti-discrimination laws that protect people on the basis of their ‘gender identities’ are much stronger for male athletes who want to compete in female-only sports,” says lawyer and author Kara Dansky.

New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination is the basis of Schreiner’s suit. The law prohibits discrimination because of “sex, [and] gender identity or expression,” amongst many other attributes.

The law’s definition of “gender identity or expression” is worse than circular: it’s a linguistic three-body problem. Not only does it use the phrase “gender identity or expression” in the course of defining the same phrase, but the law at no point defines “sex.” Yet it includes “sex assigned at birth” in the definition of “gender identity or expression.”

This renders completely hollow Schreiner’s offer to “to take any physical tests that would further demonstrate her [sic] gender.” First, there is no such test that would demonstrate, or reveal, or confirm gender. Even if there was, the NJLAD does not state how one proves his “gender identity or expression” for the purpose of enforcing the law.

If Schreiner took a physical test that would confirm sex, such as the cheek-swab test being implemented by track and field’s international governing body, in one sense that would settle everything. But under the NJLAD, the results of the cheek-swab test would be shouting into the vacuum: the law does not contemplate an objective verification of sex.

Keep reading

Veteran With PTSD Can Sue the Cops Who Arrested Him for Panhandling and Tased His Service Dog, Court Rules

A homeless veteran arrested for panhandling—and whose service dog was tased by law enforcement—can move forward with his lawsuit against police and the city, a federal court ruled this week.

Apart from the individual implications, the case also raises broader questions about the constitutionality of anti-panhandling ordinances, which have suffered defeats in various courts in recent years.

In October 2021, law enforcement in Gastonia, North Carolina, arrived at an intersection where Joshua Rohrer was standing on a median after a 911 caller phoned in to report Rohrer was “using [his] dog to make people feel sorry” for him. An officer requested backup from the Gastonia Police Department (GPD), and the scene quickly became somewhat of a circus, with several patrol cars and a slew of officers dispatched to address an alleged panhandler.

An officer demanded to see Rohrer’s identification, after which he furnished his Veteran ID card. Police said that did not suffice, promptly arresting him and ultimately booking him for solicitation and resisting arrest. (You can watch the bodycam footage here and decide for yourself if he resisted arrest.)

During that interaction, an officer tased Rohrer’s service dog, Sunshine, who ran off and was later hit by a car, killing her.

The government would ultimately drop the charges against Rohrer. But even after the ordeal, law enforcement has continued to subject him “to a relentless campaign of harassment” according to his complaint against the City of Gastonia and several officers with the GPD. It alleges violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights, including for excessive force and the unreasonable seizure of his service animal.

Rohrer’s complaint also notes that the GPD has posted “hundreds of statements that belittle and disparage Mr. Rohrer and spread false and misleading information about the incident” on social media.

“You also know that two grand juries supported the charges and that Mr Rohrer and his private legal team could have challenged the charges in court but that’s not what they chose to do now was it?”the city posted on its official GPD page. “Instead they accepted the plea deal that was offered to him. Perhaps to avoid having an actual court date where evidence and testimony would have been presented. Who knows why they chose to accept the deal offered.” Rohrer did not, in fact, plead guilty to anything tied to the October arrest.

Keep reading

Exonerated Missouri woman sues police for conspiracy and coverup that put her in prison for 43 years

Sandra Hemme’s federal lawsuit accuses St. Joseph Police of suppressing and destroying evidence that pointed to a fellow officer who was guilty of the 1980 murder. Before being freed last year, Hemme served the longest sentence of any wrongly convicted woman in American history.

Sandra Hemme, the Missouri woman who spent 43 years in prison for a murder she did not commit, has sued the city of St. Joseph and eight police officers in a 10-count federal lawsuit alleging malicious prosecution, a coerced confession and conspiracy.

“There was never any objective evidence tying Plaintiff (Hemme) to the crime,” the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit also points the finger at a former police officer, Michael Holman, as the killer of librarian Patricia Jeschke in 1980.

“To protect Holman, the Defendants concealed evidence of his guilt and chose not to follow the evidence leading to Holman,” according to the lawsuit. Holman died in 2015.

Hemme served the longest sentence of any wrongly convicted woman in American history, her lawyers have said. She was finally exonerated and freed last year after a lengthy legal battle that saw the Missouri Attorney General fighting to overturn her innocence ruling.

A year ago, in July 2024, Livingston County Circuit Court Judge Ryan Horsman overturned Hemme’s conviction — writing that she was “the victim of a manifest injustice.”

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey battled all the way to the state Supreme Court to keep Hemme in prison. She won her final freedom after the Missouri Court of Appeals rejected all of Bailey’s arguments, and in March the Buchanan County prosecutor declined to refile charges.

Keep reading

Coalition Of Dem AGs Sue Trump Admin Over Effort To Weed Non-Citizens Off Of SNAP Program

A coalition of 20 attorneys general, led by New York AG Letitia James and California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the lawsuit Monday, arguing that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s demand that states turn over personal information about SNAP recipients dating back five years, violates privacy laws.

SNAP is a federally-funded, state-administered program that provides billions of dollars in food benefits to tens of millions of low-income individuals and families in the United States.

The new USDA demands, released last week, require states to provide a list of individuals who have applied or are currently receiving SNAP benefits, in addition to other information such as a list of their immigration statuses in the U.S., and information including their marital statuses, their residential and mailing addresses, and education and employment history, among other things.

The USDA has threatened to withhold administrative funding from states that don’t comply.

On April 24, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins issued a guidance to all State agencies directing them “to enhance identity and immigration verification practices when determining eligibility for the program.

Under Rollins’ direction, John Walk, acting deputy under secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, sent letters to state SNAP agencies, explaining that most noncitizens do not qualify for the benefits.

“By law, only United States citizens and certain lawfully present aliens may receive SNAP benefits. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193) established that ‘aliens within the Nation’s borders not depend on public resources to meet their needs.’ SNAP is not and has never been available to illegal aliens,” Walk wrote.

Specifically, the USDA asked states “to cross-check Social Security numbers with a death master file and to use the free Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system provided by the Department of Homeland Security” to verify immigration status.

An estimated 1.5 million noncitizens collected a total of $4.2 billion in Food Stamp benefit payments in fiscal year 2022, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data.

Keep reading

Lawyer Suing Gates & Bourla for Covid VAX Injuries Arrested and Imprisoned in Netherlands

In a stunning expression of the Globalist-Fascist takeover of the Netherlands, the Netherlands police have arrested Arno van Kessel, the lead attorney suing Bill Gates, Albert Bourla, Mark Rutte et al. for COVID-19 vaccine injuries.

The civil process was scheduled to begin on July 9; Mr. van Kessel was arrested in a Gestapo-reminiscent early morning raid by paramilitary police on June 11, where he was reportedly blindfolded, bound, and taken into detention, where he remains almost two months later.

Readers will note my tardiness in reporting this stunning story. The reason is because both the European and the American press have completely ignored both the civil trial against Gates, Bourla, Rutte et al. and van Kessel’s arrest.

I knew nothing about van Kessel’s arrest until last night, when my co-author, Dr. Peter McCullough, forwarded to me a report by INFOWARS journalist, Adan Salazar. Once again, the so-called “conspiracy theorist” Alex Jones has proven to be one of the first guys to report the shocking reality of what is going on.

Salazar’s report prompted me to do a Google Netherlands search with the key words Arno van Kessel gearresteerd — that is, “Arno van Kessel arrested”—and I got one search result for a June 27 report in an independent online journal called Der Andere Krant (The Other Newspaper). The following is an English translation.

Arno van Kessel will be held in custody for an additional ninety days because the Public Prosecution Service continues to designate him as a “suspect in an investigation into a criminal network,” yet without presenting any evidence. This means the Leeuwarden lawyer will definitely not be present at the public hearing on July 9th in the Leeuwarden District Court, where the first substantive hearing in the internationally high-profile case against, among others, the State of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte, and Bill Gates is scheduled. His partner, Peter Stassen, is on his own, but says he will “appear fully equipped.”

In early June, this newspaper reported that there was finally some progress in the internationally high-profile lawsuit by Leeuwarden lawyer Arno van Kessel https://deanderekrant.nl/nieuw-hoofdstuk-in-rechtszaak-tegen-bill-gates-en-mark-rutte/and his Eindhoven colleague Peter Stassen. In 2023, the legal duo announced they would file legal proceedings against Bill Gates, Mark Rutte, and the Dutch State, among others. On behalf of their clients, they want to force the judge to issue a clear ruling on the question: was the COVID-19 mRNA injection a vaccine for the benefit of the population’s health, or a bioweapon? Van Kessel said: “It’s one or the other, and there’s no in between.”

The Northern Netherlands District Court, Leeuwarden location, announced in early June 2025 – finally – that the first substantive hearing of the case is scheduled for July 9th. On Wednesday morning, June 11th, there was a completely unexpected turn of events. Arno van Kessel was dragged from his bed early in the morning by a special intervention team with a considerable display of force. The lawyer, his daughter, and his wife were even briefly held at gunpoint.

A day later, the police published a report on the website politie.nl linking Van Kessel to “a criminal network.” According to a press release issued by the Public Prosecution Service, eight people were arrested that morning for “adhering to anti-institutional ideology and possibly intending to use violence.” One of them was quickly released, while the other seven were held in restricted custody for two weeks, meaning the suspects were not allowed any contact with the outside world. Van Kessel – as was announced last week – was being held in a cell in Vught.

In recent weeks, several stories have appeared in the mainstream media about a network of so-called sovereigns. These “anti-institutionalists” may have been planning something related to the NATO summit. Weapons and explosives may have been found, but any hard evidence or substantiation remains lacking to this day. The suggestion that Van Kessel is also part of a dangerous criminal group has been raised. The charges have since been partially withdrawn. The AD newspaper reported last week that the Public Prosecution Service has been unable to substantiate a plan to disrupt the NATO summit. “We have investigated whether there is an imminent threat. This has not been proven.”

On Thursday, June 26, the Public Prosecution Service released more news after a long silence. One suspect has been released, but “six suspects in the investigation into a criminal network, in which a large proportion of the arrested suspects espouse anti-institutional ideology and may have the intention to use violence, will remain in custody for an additional 90 days,” the Public Prosecution Service announced. Van Kessel is one of those suspects who will remain in custody for another 90 days. The Public Prosecution Service states that it needs more time for the investigation and that “given the state of the investigation, it is not possible to respond substantively to questions about the progress, suspicions, and findings,” according to the Public Prosecution Service.

Keep reading

America First Legal Files Complaint Over Civil Rights Violations At John Hopkins School Of Medicine

According to Campus Reform, “America First Legal has filed a civil rights complaint with the Department of Justice against the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine over ‘discriminatory’ and ‘unconstitutional’ practices.”

This civil rights complaint was filed over Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) by Stephen Miller’s America First Legal (AFL).

AFL announced this development in a press conference on July 17th.

According to Megan Redshaw, counsel at AFL, “This is about restoring equal treatment under the law.”

Redshaw alleged, “Johns Hopkins has received billions in taxpayer dollars, but it is actively segregating opportunities based on race and sex. That is not just wrong—it’s unconstitutional.”

The complaint itself accused Hopkins of embracing DEI principles, including discrimination along both racial and gender lines.

AFL points to Diversity Leadership Council and House Staff Diversity and Inclusion Council as well as Diversity Roadmap as programs by which the school engaged in discriminatory practices.

According to AFL, “Johns Hopkins has constructed a façade of legality around a deeply illegal system. They have replaced explicit race-based admissions with upstream sorting, downstream subsidies, and bureaucratic double-speak designed to preserve racial preferences.”

The complaint also alleges that the discriminatory practices in medicine are not only illegal but also pose challenges to healthcare.

America First Legal has also been active in standing against the onslaught of DEI, having filed civil rights complaints against both Colorado State and Cornell University.

American First Legal is on the front line of real modern-day civil rights on behalf of all Americans.

Keep reading

Federal court sides with Oregon Christian mom after she was prevented from adopting children based on religious beliefs

A federal court of appeals has sided with an Oregon woman who sued the state over an adoption rule by the Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) that went against her Christian beliefs. The woman was seeking to adopt children and prevented from doing so by LGBTQ laws.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction barring the ODHS from applying Oregon Administrative Rule Section 413- 200-0308(2)(k) to Jessica Bates while the lawsuit plays out in lower courts.

The rule states that those seeking to foster or adopt children in the state must “Respect, accept and support the race, ethnicity, cultural identities, national origin, immigration status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disabilities, spiritual beliefs, and socioeconomic status, of a child or young adult in the care or custody of the Department, and provide opportunities to enhance the positive self-concept and understanding of the child or young adult’s heritage.”

The appeals court stated that “The state denied Bates’s adoption application under this policy after Bates, based on her sincerely held religious beliefs, objected to using adopted children’s preferred pronouns or taking them to medical appointments for gender transitions.” Bates sued the state for violating her rights to free speech and free exercise of religion.

Circuit Judge Daniel A. Bress wrote in the court’s opinion that materials from an instructor-led course called the Resource and Adoptive Families Training (RAFT) from the ODHS state, “whether or not a youth in your care openly identifies as LGBTQ+,” parents should consider “displaying ‘hate-free zone’ signs or other symbols indicating an LGBTQ-affirming environment (e.g., pink triangle, rainbow, or ally flag.)'”

“Again without regard to whether a child in their care identifies as LGBTQ, parents should consider ‘providing acces to a variety of books, movies, and materials, including those that positively represent same-gender relationships’ while ‘pointing out LGBTQ+ celebrities, role models who stand up for the LGBTQ+ community, and people who demonstrate bravery in the face of social stigma,” Bress wrote.

He later added, “Of particular importance to this case, the RAFT materials specifically reference religion in several places. Among other things, the materials state that for LGBTQ youth, ‘prejudice and rejection can occur’ in certain settings, listing among them ‘faith-based communities.’”

Bates, a widowed mother of five, applied in May of 2022 to adopt two children under the age of nine and took the RAFT course. Bates viewed the requirements laid out by the course as “incompatible with her religious beliefs.” The opinion later stated, “Bates represents that she will love and support any adopted child, but she will want to share her beliefs with them.”

Bates’ application was denied in November of 2022 because she could not “meet the adoption home standards.” The letter she received explained, “On July 28, 2022, you completed RAFT Training. After the training you emailed your certifier that the training emphasized SOGIE (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression) as it related to the requirements that Applicants comply with OAR 413-200- 0308(2)(K). You wrote that you ‘cannot support this behavior in a child,’ and that you ‘would not encourage them in this behavior.’”

The letter later added, “You indicated that if a child became aware of their sexual orientation or gender identity and expression and that it was inconsistent with your expected sexual orientation or gender identity or expression for that child while in your home, you would love and treat them as your own but would not support their lifestyle or encourage any behavior related to their sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. When asked what it would look [like] if the agency requested you to take the child or youth to medical appointments regarding hormone shot appointments as an example, you indicated you would not take them to the appointment and further indicated you think it ‘would be considered child abuse.’”

Keep reading

New York Teachers Fired for Refusing COVID Vaccines Take Case to U.S. Supreme Court

A group of 19 teachers who sued the city of New York after they were denied religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccine mandates are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review lower court rulings, which they allege unconstitutionally favored some religious beliefs over others.

In a petition filed Monday, the teachers allege that New York City granted religious exemptions only to people who belonged to religions whose leaders had not publicly endorsed COVID-19 vaccination.

The city denied requests by teachers who applied for exemptions based on personal religious beliefs that contradicted their religious leaders’ official support of the vaccines, the appeal said.

Michael Kane, a plaintiff in the case and founder of Teachers for Choice, said:

“What New York City did was so egregious. To allow this to stand sets a horrendous precedent for my children and grandchildren. The discrimination was so intense and constitutionally shoddy it must not be permitted.”

According to Kane, most of the teachers are “still out of work or doing odd jobs, making half their previous income.”

Although New York City Mayor Eric Adams rescinded the mandate in February 2023, the city didn’t rehire the teachers.

The case stems from two lawsuits filed in 2021 challenging New York City’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate and its denials of the religious exemption requests: Kane v. de Blasio and Keil v. City of New York. Children’s Health Defense is supporting the combined lawsuit.

Several lower courts, including the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in November 2024, ruled against the teachers.

The New York City Department of Education, its Chancellor, Melissa Aviles-Ramos, and New York City Health Commissioner Ashwin Vasan are among the defendants named in the combined lawsuit.

Keep reading