Motion for Injunction to Prohibit Vaccination of Minor Child

Motion for Injunction to Prohibit Vaccination of Minor Child
by T. Matthew Phillips, Attorney-at-Law


STEAL THIS MOTION! It is intended for use in connection with California family law matters. This is not legal advice. This is an illustrative example of legal arguments, by one parent, to obtain an injunction, (court order), to prohibit the other parent from vaccinating a minor child. Consult your attorney. This legal brief exposes the harsh reality of American law — and the curious legal presumptions that affect childhood vaccine injuries. Download the PDF — see below! ~~TMP. (Calif. Lic. No. 165833)


MOTION for INJUNCTION to PROHIBIT VACCINATION

I.       Motion for Injunction —

Respondent Requests Injunction:  Respondent now moves the Court for a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting vaccination of the parties’ minor child. Respondent believes vaccines are just too risky.

Contents of Motion:  Motions for injunctions must, with specificity, state the reasons why the court should issue the requested injunction.  Moving parties must show good cause to issue the requested injunction.  

Good Cause Reasons for Injunction:  Respondent relies on the below listed reasons—

(i)            “[T]he FDA has never even spelled out in regulations the criteria it uses to decide whether a vaccine is safe and effective for its intended use,” [Bruesewitz vs. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223, at 237 (2011)];

(ii)           American law presumes that all vaccines come with inherent risk of “unavoidable adverse side effects,” including death and disability, [see National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, (“NCVIA”), 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–22(b)(1)];

(iii)          American law presumes that all vaccine injuries and deaths are “unavoidable,” even assuming the vaccine maker exercises due care, (i.e., there’s no such thing as “avoidable” side effects), [Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223, at 252 (2011)];

(iv)         American law presumes that defective vaccine design is the legal cause of all adverse side effects, including all injuries and deaths, [Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223, at 252 (2011)]; and,

(v)          American law forbids childhood personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits — alleging defective vaccine design — as against any vaccine maker, doctor, or hospital, [Bruesewitz, passim.].

Request for Injunction:  Vaccines are just too risky; therefore, Respondent requests an injunction prohibiting vaccination of the parties’ minor child.    

*       *       *

II.       Points & Authorities —

Landmark Ruling:  In 2011, Bruesewitz vs. Wyeth, LLC held that the 1986 Act forbids childhood vaccine injury lawsuits alleging “design defects” as against vaccine makers. Bruesewitz declares that all vaccines are unavoidably unsafe — based on the notion that all vaccine designs are unavoidably defective.  Even assuming a vaccine is free of manufacturing defects, it is nevertheless presumed to come with unavoidable design defects, which American law presumes are the legal cause of all adverse side effects, including death and permanent disability, [see Bruesewitz vs. Wyeth, LLC., 562 U.S. 223, 252 (2011); see also 42 U.S.C § 300aa–22(b)]

Fickle Nature of Vaccine Design:  Bruesewitz holds that “design defects” are the legal cause of all vaccine injuries, and further, that “design defects” are unavoidable — as is the ever-present risk of death and permanent disability, [see Bruesewitz, at 252].

No Such Thing as ‘Avoidable’ Adverse Side Effects:  The Bruesewtiz case reveals an inconvenient truth about American vaccine law — it recognizes no such thing as “avoidable” adverse side effects, (i.e., all adverse side effects are totally “unavoidable”).  American law presumes that vaccine makers, regardless of best efforts, cannot prevent injurious side effects.  American law presumes that all vaccines come with inherent risk of “unavoidable adverse side effects” presumptively caused by defective vaccine design, [see 42 U.S.C § 300aa–22(b); see also, Bruesewitz, at 252]. 

Immunity from Lawsuits:  Yes, American law does allow vaccine injury lawsuits based on “labeling” defects and “manufacturing” defects; however, as a practical matter, these lawsuits have little chance of success.  Why? —because: (i) FDA writes all the labels, (which means manufacturers are never blameworthy for labeling defects), and (ii) FDA permits manufacturers to operate outside the scope of public scrutiny, (which means consumers never know about manufacturing glitches).  The only worthwhile lawsuits would be for “design defects,” however, Congress specifically forbids lawsuits for “design defects” — because, of course, American law presumes that “design defects” are the legal cause of all vaccine-related deaths and disabilities, [Bruesewitz, at 252]. 

No Design Defect Lawsuits: When vaccines cause injuries, the law presumes the vaccine was “properly prepared,” (free of manufacturing defects), and further, that it was “accompanied by proper directions and warnings,” (free of labeling defects); and so, when vaccines kill or maim, the law presumes design defects are the cause, [Bruesewitz, at 252].  But, as it turns out, Congress forbids lawsuits alleging design defects.

If Parents Could Sue Vaccine Makers:  If Congress allowed parents to sue for unsafe vaccine design, parents would rely on the legal presumption, i.e., that unsafe design is the cause of all vaccine injuries — and this legal presumption would spell victory in every lawsuit!  But alas, Congress prohibits lawsuits for unsafe vaccine design.

Unavoidable Adverse Side Effects:  In deciding whether to vaccinate, parents must know and understand that American law presumes that “unavoidable adverse side effects” are part and parcel to every vaccine design, [see 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–22(b)]. Which means there’s no such thing as “avoidable” vaccine side effects.

Unavoidably Unsafe” vs. “Safe ‘n Effective”: Mainstream science touts vaccines as “safe ‘n effective”; however, the Bruesewitz presumption runs contrary.  Bruesewitz presumes that all vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.”  And, it goes without saying; vaccines cannot be both unavoidably unsafe — and safe ‘n effective — at the same time!    

All Vaccines are Unavoidably Unsafe: When it comes to pharmaceutical drugs, the risk of injurious side effects are generally possible, (“Anything’s possible!”).  However, when it comes to vaccines, there’s a heightened risk of injurious side effects — which American law presumes is inherently unavoidable, (“Cannot be prevented!”).

Zero Safety Incentive:  Vaccine makers have zero risk of childhood vaccine injury lawsuits — which means they have zero incentive for child safety.  Here, the absence of safety incentive is reason enough for prudent parents to decline vaccines.   

No Warranty Coverage: Vaccines come with no warranties — express or implied — and no vaccine maker offers an option for consumers to purchase vaccine warranty plans; (the risk is just too great).  Parents doing a risk-benefit analysis must consider that all vaccines come with guaranteed risk of “unavoidable adverse side effects,” but none come with guaranteed benefits, [see “NCVIA,” 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–22(b)], 

Risk-Benefit Analysis:  In 2011, the Supreme Court declared — “The FDA has never even spelled out in regulations the criteria it uses to decide whether a vaccine is safe and effective for its intended use,” [J. Scalia, Bruesewitz vs. Wyeth, LLC, 562 U.S. 223, 237 (2011)].  All parents pondering the vaccine question should read aloud Mr. Justice Scalia’s disquieting words.

No Definition for “Safe” Vaccine: Remarkably, FDA regulates vaccine “safety,” yet FDA has never defined the term “safe” as it relates to any vaccine.  No vaccine can legitimately be labeled as “safe” — because that term, “safe,” escapes legal definition.  When all’s said, there’s no such thing as “safe” vaccines.

No Such Thing as “Safe” Vaccines:  And, it begs the question — if vaccines were truly “safe,” then why does Congress need to immunize vaccine makers from personal injury lawsuits? (Mainstream science offers no explanation…)    

*       *       *

III.      Irreparable Harm / Inadequate Remedy —

Likeliness of Irreparable Harm:  Courts grant injunctions where irreparable harm is likely, [see Small v. Avanti Health Sys., LLC, 661 F.3d 1180, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011)].  Here, irreparable harm is likely because all vaccines come with inherent risk of “unavoidable adverse side effects,” [42 U.S.C § 300aa–22(b)], including death and permanent disability.

Imminent Harm:  In addition to irreparable, the harm must also be imminent, [Amylin Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly, 456 F. App’x 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2011).  All vaccines subject children to risk of imminent harm because all vaccines come with inherent risk of “unavoidable adverse side effects,” [42 U.S.C § 300aa–22(b)].

Inadequate Remedy at Law:  Childhood vaccine packaging inserts list death and permanent disability as adverse side effects.  Here, money damages are inadequate, [see, e.g., Ariz. Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014)].  Money damages cannot redress for childhood vaccines injuries — because childhood vaccine injury lawsuits are a legal impossibility. 

Balancing the Equities:  Courts must evaluate the likely harm if injunction is granted — versus the likely harm if injunction is denied, [Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. C’cil, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)].  On balance, Respondent is swayed by the fact that all vaccines comes with a legally presumed risk of death and permanent disability.

The Scales Tip Against Vaccination:  If the court grants the proposed injunction, the minor child suffers no prejudice, nor loss of rights; but, on the other hand, if the court denies the proposed injunction, the minor child is placed directly in harm’s way because federal law presume that all vaccines come with inherent risk of “unavoidable adverse side effects,” [42 U.S.C § 300aa–22(b)]

*       *       *

IV.      How Vaccines Affect the Human Body —

The Great Unknown:  In 2005, a federal appeals court described vaccine science as a “field bereft of complete and direct proof of how vaccines affect the human body,” [see Althen vs. Sec’y of HHS, 418 F.3d 1274, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2005)].

Unanswered Questions:  Too many questions surround vaccines, but according to Bruesewitz, “the design of the vaccine is a given, not subject to question,” [see, Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223, 232 (2011)].

Vaccines are Too Risky:  As Althen demonstrates, too little is known about vaccine physiology — except that a looming risk of death and permanent disability hangs over each vaccine — and heaven forbid death or permanent disability does occur — legal recourse is not an option.  Mindful of the fact that it’s impossible to un-vaccinate, Respondent thus wishes to prohibit vaccination of  the minor child.  

*       *       *

V.      Summary & Conclusion—

Legal and Factual Summary:  Respondent below summarizes the argument—   

(i)            FDA has never spelled-out a definition for the term “safe” as it relates to vaccines;

(ii)           American law presumes that all vaccines come with inherent risk of “unavoidable adverse side effects,” including death and permanent disability;

(iii)          American law presumes that all vaccine injuries and deaths are “unavoidable,” even assuming the vaccine maker exercises due care;

(iv)         American law presumes that defective vaccine design is the legal cause of all vaccine injuries and deaths; and,

(v)          American law forbids childhood personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits — alleging defective vaccine design — as against any vaccine maker, doctor, or hospital.

Unavoidably Unsafe: All vaccines are unavoidably “unsafe.”  Vaccines come with no warranties — express or implied — and no manufacturer offers an option for consumers to purchase vaccine warranty plans; (the risk is just too great).  There’s a guaranteed risk of adverse side effects, but no guaranteed benefits. And, where children sustain vaccine related injuries, lawsuits are not an option.  Knowing it’s impossible to un-vaccinate, Respondent wishes to prohibit vaccination of the minor child.

Good Cause:  Based on the foregoing, good cause exists to grant the proposed injunction prohibiting vaccination of the minor child.

Epilogue:  Freedom means nothing if parents can’t keep the government out of their children’s bodies.    

Dated:  July 13, 2021    

T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.
Respondent’s Counsel        

*       *       *

AFFIDAVIT of RESPONDENT

My name is _________________.  I am the Respondent.  All of the allegations herein are true and correct of my own knowledge.  If called upon to testify, I could and would give competent and truthful evidence.  I have extensively studied the history, science and pseudoscience of vaccines.  I am informed and believe that—  

1.         FDA has never spelled-out in regulations the criteria it uses to decide whether a vaccine is safe and effective for its intended use. 

2.         American law presumes that all vaccines come with inherent risk of “unavoidable adverse side effects,” including death and disability.

3.         American law presumes that all vaccine injuries and deaths are “unavoidable,” even assuming the vaccine maker exercises due care; in other words, there’s no such thing as “avoidable” side effects. 

4.         American law presumes that defective vaccine design is the legal cause of all adverse side effects, including all injuries and deaths. 

5.         American law forbids childhood vaccine injury and wrongful death lawsuits alleging defective vaccine design against any vaccine maker, doctor, or hospital. 

6.         There’s no such thing as “safe” vaccines.  All vaccines are unavoidably “unsafe.”  Vaccines come with no warranties — express or implied — and no manufacturer offers an option for consumers to purchase vaccine warranty plans; (the risk is just too great).  There’s a guaranteed risk of adverse side effects, but no guaranteed benefits.   Where children sustain vaccine related injuries, lawsuits are not an option.  Knowing it’s impossible to un-vaccinate, I wish to prohibit vaccination of the minor child.       

I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is both true and correct.

Dated:  July 13, 2021

_______________________________
Respondent’s Signature 

*       *       *


DOWNLOAD this MOTION!

Click on the link below!



VACCINE PACKAGING INSERTS are intended to provide “informed consent” warnings — to put the public on notice of unavoidable adverse side effects.  However, the Moderna C-19 packaging inserts, (pictured), have been left “intentionally blank!”
Are you paying attention? 


Produced and Directed by TMP’s Midnight Minions
in association with Chapter Eleven Productions,
Fly-By-Night Management Services, and
Neurotica Entertainment Group


Copyright 2021 – by T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.


“Freedom means nothing if parents can’t keep
the government out of their children’s bodies.”
~  T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.  ~


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: