Maine's Supreme Court affirms the PREP Act liability shield for vaccinations of children against parental consent.

No, you do not have any Constitutional rights until PREP Act declarations are terminated.

On Tuesday, March 4, Maine’s Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit filed by Jeremiah Hogan, a father whose 5-year-old daughter had been injected with a Covid mRNA “vaccine” against his wishes. Court ruling here.

The lawsuit was filed against Lincoln Medical Partners and its parent company, MaineHealth, Inc. and raised significant legal questions about the scope of immunity under the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act.

The high court’s response affirms the PREP Act immunity shield and resulting removal of the Constitutional rights of the plaintiffs:

Summary of the background of this case:

At a school clinic held in November 2021, Lincoln Medical administered the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine to Jeremiah Hogan and Siara Jean Harrington’s five-year-old child without having obtained parental consent to the vaccination. Framed as a multi-count civil complaint for medical malpractice, Hogan’s notice alleged claims against all defendants on behalf of the child for professional negligence, systemic professional negligence, battery, and false imprisonment. The notice alleged three additional tort claims against all defendants on behalf of the parents: intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with parental rights.

The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that it was immune from suit under the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act; see 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 247d-6d, 247d-6e.

The ruling restates where the PREP Act liability shield doesn’t apply, (in theory):

In practice, the PREP Act immunity shield doesn’t apply only to those who refuse to be executioners on behalf of the state financed and ordered mass murder and terrorism. But I digress.

The judge somehow doesn’t even know the correct name of the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), but ok. It’s not important, because nobody will be compensated from it anyway:

The court finds that:

1. The state law and common law are completely preempted by the PREP Act, while the declaration of emergency is ongoing (now extended to December 31, 2029).

2. The defendants are “covered persons” and administered a “covered countermeasure”, and therefore are immune from suit and liability:

   A covered person is immune from suit and liability under state law “with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration” of the emergency-authorized countermeasure—here, the vaccine. 42 U.S.C.A. § 247d-6d(a)(1); see id. § 247d-6d(i)(1)(C). The immunity “applies to any claim for loss that has a causal relationship with the administration to . . . an individual of” the vaccine. Id. § 247d-6d(a)(2)(B).

3. Not obtaining parental consent for injecting a child does not make the injection any less of a “covered countermeasure”:

   Accepting the allegations of the notice of claim as true, the provider’s failure to obtain parental consent in this individual instance does not make the administered vaccine—approved for emergency use under § 360bbb-3—any less of a “covered countermeasure” under § 247d-6d(i)(1)(C).

4. The PREP Act also does not, as plaintiffs asserted, violate international law prohibiting non-consensual human medical experimentation:

   The administration of a vaccine approved for emergency use is not an experiment but an authorization to use a countermeasure that has been approved to combat a public health emergency. See 21 U.S.C.A. § 360bbb-3. The notice of claim alleges no facts, such as the subsequent monitoring or testing of the child, that would suggest medical experimentation.

   The footnote included in the above statement is particularly telling (emphasis added):

   Although Hogan also contends that the immunity provision is, as applied, inconsistent with constitutional principles of due process, the fundamental rights of parents to make decisions regarding the care and management of their children, see Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 (2000), are not absolute, see Dorr v. Woodard, 2016 ME 79, ¶ 13, 140 A.3d 467, and the federal government has a compelling interest in legislating to address public health emergencies, see Roman Cath. Diocese

Regarding the “experimentation” word - I have advised many groups drafting legislation or pursuing cases like this to not use this word. The Nuremberg code is an ethical code only and is not part of the US law. On the other hand, EUA countermeasures are NON-investigational chemical substances which are not regulated as medicine at all, and therefore cannot be an experimental medical product. The allegations of illegal human experimentation should be brought up in criminal cases, not civil complaints, because, as we see here, they are easily dismissed in this context. EUA countermeasures are entirely removed from any rules or regulations applicable to pharmaceutical products. None of the cases I have seen to date describe this law properly, as it is written, and they get dismissed very easily based on this issue. AG (TX) Ken Paxton’s case v. Pfizer for false marketing in the state of TX was the closest almost correct description of the EUA law, but was inaccurate in one key issue, as I discussed in this article. The case was dismissed.

In the Hogan ruling, the judge even notes above that EUA countermeasures are “approved to combat” (i.e. as weapons), not “approved to prevent covid, approved to treat covid” etc. - i.e. not approved as medicine. If you think that’s just a figure of speech - they haven’t used any idioms or flowery language anywhere else in this ruling.

And thus the court ruled in favor of defendants, pre-empting the state law, the common law, against the parental rights, against the informed consent, in favor of poisoning the children and in favor of the most awful evil committed in the history of humankind. It took me several days to mentally steady myself to read the short 14 page document. Because I abhor every word in it. Each sentence screams injustice and state brutality unleashed on the child and the family. I hope the defendants and the judge burn in hell where they belong, for eternity. I maybe violating a bunch of Christian ethics by thinking this, but I can’t help myself. So I should probably end this post now.

As long as the PREP Act declaration remains in place, nothing will change. There is no hope for justice, while the Trump admin and the HHS Secretary allow this inhumane horror to continue.

Open Letter to the HHS Secretary, RFK Jr.

Art for today: At the ranch, oil on panel 9x12 in.