The following court ruling was shared by Aaron Siri, a well-known civil rights lawyer fighting against COVID vaccine mandates in the US [he is the same lawyer representing scientists in the fight for the Pfizer documents, see FDA Wants 55 years to Process FOIA Request Over Vaccine Data, FDA Now Wants 75 Years to Release Pfizer Vaccine Documents, not just 55 Years. Also read Know Your Right, a Law Firm Fighting Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccine, Whistleblower: FDA and CDC Ignore Damning Report that over 90% of a Hospital’s Admissions were Vaccinated for Covid-19 and No One Was Reporting This to VAERS, CDC: No Record of Naturally Immune Transmitting COVID-19].

The court ruling was issued by Justice A. Pazaratz of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released last February 22, 2022. It is a decision on a motion filed by Jesse Herman against his ex-wife who refused to allow her children to take the COVID vaccine. In the motion, Herman was asking the court to overrule the mother’s right to decide for their children so that their two young kids who are under the mother’s care could receive their COVID vaccination and all corresponding booster shots.

Both parties offer evidence for their position, with the judge finally deciding in favor of the mother. He says, “I am satisfied that that mother’s request for a cautious approach is compelling, and reinforced by the children’s views and preferences which are legitimate and must be respected…Her current concerns about the vaccines are entirely understandable, given the credible warnings and commentary provided by reputable sources who are specifically acquainted with this issue”.

Editor’s Note: While the document is lengthy (28 pages in total), we find that it is an extensive summary of all the points that we have been raising about vaccination in general and the need to respect the right of every individual to make decisions for themselves. It is an easy read, and we think that you will find the resolution compelling.

Some of the important points highlighted in the resolution include the following:

• The government should not be used as a sole source of authority because they have made decisions that are anti-human rights and have directly violated freedoms of their citizens.
• While the issues raised by individuals like Robert Malone, Peter McCullough, Sucharit Bhakdi, etc. are still being debated, people must not ignore the ideas they are presented because these are professionals who are well-respected in their fields.
• The father (pro-vax) has taken to dismissing the mother’s concerns and labelling them as “anti-vaxx”, even saying that the issues she has raised have already been debunked, but he presents no good evidence to prove that such determination has been made.
• “Pro-vaccine parents have consistently (and effectively) attempted to frame the issue as a contest between reputable government experts versus a lunatic fringe consisting of conspiracy theorists, and socially reprehensible extremists. This was absolutely the wrong case to attempt that strategy. The professional materials filed by the mother were actually more informative and more thought-provoking than the somewhat repetitive and narrow government materials filed by the father.”

We find this court ruling amusing because it asks the same questions we ask, and it is clear that the presiding judge has been awakened to the various issues concerning COVID vaccines. It is also clear that he is concerned that people are now equating COVID vaccination and following vaccine mandates to becoming good citizens, which effectively dismisses the valid points of those who are concerned about the side effects of the COVID jab.

We echo his point of view: No one is a bad citizen simply by virtue of asking questions of the government. The need to settle the issue of the safety of COVID vaccines is imperative, especially when we are talking about children’s lives.

Read Original Article