All Episodes
Previous Next
March 8, 2021 - Jim Fetzer
26:06
First Court Case Against Mandatory Vaccination: Attorney Interview
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome everyone, I'm Spiro with ActivistPost.com.
There's been a lot of talk about the COVID vaccine, 24-7 news coverage, and multi-million dollar advertising campaigns, and still there is a lot of unanswered questions, like will I be permitted to travel or work without receiving the vaccine?
Well, the very first legal case against mandatory COVID vaccination in the workplace has just surfaced, and joining me today is Ana Garner, Thank you for having me.
who filed the lawsuit on behalf of her client.
Ana, thank you for being my guest today.
Thank you for having me.
I'm honored to be here, Spiro.
Now, Ana, you are an attorney with 40 years' experience with several high-profile cases
under your belt, and you are representing the plaintiff in this case against an employer
who has mandated the COVID vaccine for its employees.
Now, just to be clear, I'm not a legal expert.
I'm not an attorney and I don't have a bachelor's in anything.
You have a bachelor's of science and biology.
Now, at this point, as a regular person, for myself, this is a big case to me.
I would imagine that the outcome of this case would not only have a direct impact on your client, but this case could potentially set a legal precedent which could affect millions of people.
Am I reading too much into this, or how high are the stakes here?
The stakes are extremely high, and we're prepared to go as far and fight as hard as we can to make sure that we reach the top.
level of the judicial system.
We want to go to the Supreme Court with this.
But what's at stake here are our medical freedoms, our liberties, bodily integrity, our right to choose to refuse any sort of medical intervention.
This is a critical issue.
We are not human guinea pigs, nor should we be treated that way.
And that's what's happening.
Now, Ana, if you could please tell us the story behind the lawsuit.
Who was involved?
What are the circumstances that led up to this potential landmark case?
How did we get here?
Well, we run an organization called New Mexico Stands Up, nmstandsup.org.
And through our organization, we're affiliated with other organizations in New Mexico.
And in the southern part of New Mexico, one of the organizations had gotten information that the first responders We're now being mandated to all have the COVID experimental COVID-19 injection.
That included the firefighters, the police, sheriff's department, correctional detention centers, EMTs, and I think I've covered all of them.
When we got that notification, we immediately jumped into action and we sent a cease and desist letter to the county manager, Fernando Macias.
They ignored us and about a week to 10 days later, we sent another letter of notice of impending litigation because we heard that the employees were being coerced under threat of losing their employment.
So by the time we filed our lawsuit, some of the people who indicated earlier that they would have considered being plaintiffs had already submitted to the injection and that just devastated me, but we did have One very courageous young correctional officer, Isaac Legarata, and he is standing in as a plaintiff, and we're really happy to represent him in this.
So, our criteria were that we would represent anyone who stood their ground and refused to take it.
We would not represent them once they had taken it, because at that point it's a moot point for them.
They would lack standing.
So, we had to find someone who Would not succumb to the pressure and Mr. Legareta, 23-year-old former Marine and a correctional officer, stood his ground.
And I'm sure people can imagine that is a very difficult place to be in, especially if you're the breadwinner, if you have a family, and you're having to make this very difficult decision if you choose not to do it, like you said, under the threat of coercion.
Now, I had seen your client had filed a request last week.
What can you tell us about that, and what is the current status of the lawsuit itself?
We filed an application for temporary restraining order to prevent the county manager or anyone working under him or any of the supervisors at the detention center from threatening Isaac with the loss of his employment or in any way trying to put additional pressure on him.
As you know from reading the lawsuit, he was subjected to a coaching and counseling session, which is, to me, another form of subtle pressure or not so subtle pressure To rethink his position, you know, and rethink his position on not following a directive of a supervisor.
A correctional officer is in a sort of quasi-military sort of setting and they are bound to follow their supervisors or it's insubordination.
But this is a case where the supervisor is just dead wrong.
They absolutely don't have the right to force anyone to take an experimental medical product.
The judge did deny our temporary restraining order but did set a schedule for briefing for the preliminary injunction.
So it'll require some briefing and we're hopeful that we can either negotiate a resolution of this or when we go to present it to the court that we will win that part of it.
So far no one has pressured him or fired him.
No one has terminated his employment.
So we think that they're perhaps not going to do that Well, the lawsuit is pending.
Our ultimate outcome is to get a declaratory judgment action, a declaratory judgment from the, from the court saying that the federal law concerning emergency use authorization is superior to any mandate or law that could be passed in the state.
Recently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had issued new guidelines on whether or not employers can require or mandate employees to receive the COVID vaccine as a condition of employment.
The EEOC essentially concluded yes, but there are some caveats to that.
Employers could mandate the shot, provided that the vaccination requirement is job-related and consistent with business necessity.
But additionally, employers would be compelled to recognize exemptions that fall within the ADA, the American Disabilities Act, or a strongly held religious belief, so a religious exemption, at which point the employer would have to essentially make a reasonable effort, they say, to accommodate the employee seeking the exemption, like perhaps allowing them to work from home But for many jobs, this is simply not possible, and your client would fall into that category.
According to the EEOC, an employer can legally terminate an employee who is not vaccinated if they pose a direct threat that cannot be accommodated without undue hardship.
I'm not sure how much you're willing to get into the specifics about your case, and I think you briefly kind of already covered some of it, but what is your legal argument for your client against this mandatory vaccination in the workplace in light of this EEOC position?
Well, we now have two federal statutes conflicting with one another, so there's going to have to be a resolution of this.
If one just looks at The reasons behind why under an approval of any medical product under an emergency use authorization must be consented to and the recipient must be fully informed.
If we look at the reasons behind that, it's because it's experimental.
And if it's experimental, you're now experimenting on humans when you force them to have this.
This is against the Nuremberg Code, which I understand has been adopted by the United States and is incorporated into certain statutes.
I'm not an expert on this by any means.
But this is what I have, what I found in brief research.
It's also a crime against humanity.
And that is, that's the significant thing here.
This is a crime against humanity for these organizations and counties, and now even the Department of Defense trying to get all of our military vaccinated.
Forcing, they're trying to force them, but there's a fine line they're trying to walk as well.
But they're certainly misrepresenting the facts around this injectable.
And that is, they're misrepresenting that it's safe, that it has been tested.
That's not true.
You can't even produce an effective vaccine in the number of months that this one has just been rolled out so quickly.
And as we know, there are several types of these injectables coming out.
We have the mRNA technology and we have other types of technology.
Well, you're absolutely right, based on my research as well, and the mRNA technology is new in this field.
It has not been used, to my understanding, in vaccinations or injectables in the past.
And speaking of that, I mean, this case itself, is there any legal precedent in the past in regards to experimental vaccines or experimental medicines being forced upon people?
I mean, this has got to be unheard of at this point.
It really is, Spiro.
It's a brand new case of first impression because we, in our search, we went through Lexis, which is a very extensive legal database, and we couldn't find any cases that construed the provision that we cited in our complaint, the one about emergency use authorization.
We have looked through the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals cases.
We've looked through the U.S.
Supreme Court cases.
We look through district court cases, federal district court cases, because that's the likely place this would be tried.
We have done a search, and to our knowledge, we're the first one in the country to have even challenged any mandate that would coerce or require or put any sort of duress on anyone to take an experimental product.
That's right.
I think this may get lost in all of the hype and hysteria and promoting of the vaccine and the PCR test as well, that neither of those products have received FDA approval.
They only have the emergency use authorization.
So this is not an approved drug.
It's not an approved test.
It has only been approved because of this emergency that has been declared that we've been living under for the past year now.
I have to ask, Ana, what has the media coverage been like for you and your client?
Has the media reached out to either of you at all?
Have you guys been treated fairly?
And what kind of impact, if any, do you think that the media coverage could have on this case?
Initially, we were reported very fairly and neutrally by the Las Cruces Sun-Times.
And from there, that story got picked up by quite a few larger publications like The Hill, Telegraph.
I don't know if we got into Washington Post or not.
My research team and my volunteer team have sent me many links that we've already been picked up.
We were not only picked up nationally with this coverage, but also internationally.
A publication in the UK picked us up as well.
So we're getting extensive coverage.
I have been contacted by what I would call the mainstream media false news people and I'm rather reluctant to even give an interview because I tried one for all of nine minutes and it went disastrously and I had to terminate the interview.
So we're really not interested in talking to the people who want to slant this in a way that fit into their dangerous narrative.
I want to get the word out to people that they have the absolute right to refuse right now.
Now, we're going to face a big problem when these injectables are finally approved.
That concerns me.
But we have to fight the battle here first.
And we hope that by doing this, it gives us some traction when we have to go fight the battle when they are approved medical products.
And you stated before previously, Ana, that you're prepared and ready to take this all the way to the Supreme Court if need be.
What are the potential outcomes of this case in your view?
I mean, where do you see this going and what kind of timelines are we looking at here?
Well, I think that the district court case would be pretty quick because it really deals with an issue of law and it can be decided by motion, basically like a motion hearing.
It's not a full blown trial.
We're not going to have any experts.
We're not going to have any witnesses that we have to call.
We just need to have the judge decide as a matter of law, what's going to, um, what the correct, uh, interpretation of this law is.
Um, regardless of the outcome, I expect that it will be appealed by whoever is not successful at that level.
And it'll be appealed to the 10th circuit.
Um, after that we have the right to appeal or ask the Supreme Court to take a look at it.
There are circumstances in which you can go directly to the Supreme Court from the federal court when they are of pretty severe public emergency type of situations.
So we might be able to convince the Supreme Court to take it and bypass, but we're not, we don't know that yet.
This is a process that we'll have to go through.
It may take us six to eight months to get that high.
And in the meantime, I would expect that other states will have Similar issues that come up and we're hoping that other states will also join in this type of fight.
Now, this is groundbreaking.
I can't stress the importance of, just from my perspective, my view and limited legal understanding that this case is a big deal.
I can't stress that enough.
But you also have some other very interesting and important cases in the works.
You're extremely busy.
These other cases that you're involved with right now, can you give us a quick kind of snapshot of what else is in the works?
Yes.
On December 21st, we filed a case against our governor, Governor Lujan Grisham, that is challenging the state of public health emergency that was declared.
We say that even if a public health emergency existed as of, let's say, March of 2020, it no longer exists.
We have uncovered enough information, enough evidence to show that the death counts have been grossly inflated, that the PCR tests are meaningless, And that the myth of asymptomatic transmission is completely untrue.
And that would, because the PCR testing and asymptomatic transmission fallacy are driving a lot of the governor's responses, if we can knock those out and show the court that there is no public health emergency, That will, in effect, invalidate the restrictions that she's put on our entire state.
We are living in one of the most restrictive states in the nation right now.
Only recently has she reopened whatever restaurants have been able to survive that closed the shutdown.
And it's been quite devastating to our economy, to the people personally, and everything else.
The nice thing about this lawsuit is that if we show that there's no public health emergency, that also will feed into being able to challenge the emergency use authorization because the emergency has to exist.
As long as the emergency exists, the emergency use authorization is valid.
Once the emergency is no longer there, then also they lose their EUA status.
So, we're looking at that on a national level because They're basing it on the declaration of emergency that happened at the federal level.
That's a great point.
This case could really complement the other one and have an impact on it.
Now, I remember looking back throughout the news of New Mexico, it was very authoritarian.
I mean, they had checkpoints set up to where you couldn't leave certain areas, certain counties.
And you're absolutely spot on with the PCR and the whole emergency in itself.
I mean, the inventor of PCR, Kerry Mullis, before he passed away in August of 2019, he did say on record that PCR was never designed to diagnose for an infectious disease.
It can be.
Even the World Health Organization was forced to admit recently that there is a problem with PCR because of the amount of cycling, essentially.
You can either run the test through more cycles and increase what you're detecting or reduce the cycle threshold and lower that.
That is right there.
It can be manipulated.
It's not a set standard.
And so that raises a lot of big questions there, and rightfully so.
And this is something that a lot of people have been pointing out over this past year.
So I believe that it is starting to have an effect to where it's starting to unravel.
And if the PCR test unravels, the whole thing could unravel, essentially.
Because then, like you said, if there is no emergency, then the whole agenda kind of goes out the window.
Absolutely, absolutely and that's a good point you made about the cycle thresholds because what people need to understand is it is an exponential amplification of minute amounts of genetic material and what they've done is the CDC set its test, its original PCR test at 40 cycles and several of the manufacturers that got approved under an EUA again, Emergency Use Authorization, they got approved under that and they set them as high as 45.
And a study that came out of France last year found that anything over 17 cycles was getting far more unreliable and that probably they shouldn't even be over 25 or 30 because the rate of reliability falls off dramatically.
The other problem with this test is it was based on not having the presence of the virus, an isolated virus.
So they have to guess at what they are actually picking up.
And the inserts in the PCR test say this test is not conclusive for COVID-19 because it can pick up Ebola and SARS and other coronaviruses.
So even their package inserts basically give a disclaimer about their reliability.
Just like the masks, say, have a disclaimer saying that they don't protect you from the coronavirus.
But hey, you still gotta wear two or three of them.
So Ana, for the sake of full transparency, if you choose to disclose this, what does the financial side look like?
I mean, after all, legal expenses are usually not cheap, and I assume that your clients are paying for your services.
Are you receiving money from any groups, any dreaded anti-vaccine organizations, or any kind of outside funding at all?
Well, we are receiving donations.
I do not get paid from the clients at all.
We're a public interest legal services organization and we're run mostly by volunteers.
Jonathan Diener, who is my co-counsel here in New Mexico, and I have been working for completely free for over six months on These issues about restoring our liberties and freedoms.
And, uh, we did ask for donations to cover the, uh, additional time that we would have to put into the Dona Ana County, um, case.
And we basically estimated our fees at half of what we would be charging if we were doing a private type of thing.
So we are, this is not about money.
This is about us giving to the community and to New Mexico.
And it's nice to be supported as well.
And we have had very generous support from our New Mexico citizens.
So we are reaching our goals in that and we can always use more money because if we have to appeal, the money that we estimated is just for the first level of the fight.
And then there will be, of course, additional attorney time.
And appeals are typically very expensive because they're labor intensive.
So we're asking for support.
You know, we have a volunteer, we have a Paypal button on our website where people can donate and it
gives instructions if they want to mail checks Or if they're not comfortable going through the internet,
they can do it another way. So we've we've been very happy to raise money
Not it hasn't reached our goal yet, but it's it's getting there
Now on I know you cannot give legal advice on a platform like this
So without doing so I'm sure that there are gonna be a lot of other people out there who may potentially find
themselves in a similar situation as your client is currently.
What can people do?
Like, what are their options?
Can they hire you, or could I hire you if I need to?
I mean, what are people's options out there?
Well, we're not going to be taking any other cases unless they fit specifically with this county And this mandate.
This is our test case, and so we would take more Dona Ana County employees who have stood their ground and refused.
However, for everyone else, you know, we're asking that they contact places like ICANN, Dell Big Trees Group, who is helping with this.
We say sign up for Make Americans Free Again through Pam Popper, and she has quite a mailing list.
I say stand your ground.
We have to stand our ground.
And this is why it's gotten into this position is we've had too many people capitulate to authority.
This is an unbridled, tyrannical expression of authority that I have never seen in my lifetime.
And my mother, who's close to 90, has never seen it in her lifetime.
It's been shocking what's happened.
And if we continue to let them steamroll over us, We're going to be in an even worse position.
We've got to stand our ground.
We have to say, this all stops when we say no, no more.
And standing your ground for this particular, I think, dangerous product is something that will preserve your health.
It will preserve your family's stability because there have been so many side effects.
But it will also show them that we are not to be used as human guinea pigs.
We have the right to choose what goes into our body.
And so I say to people, even the COVID disease, yes, it does kill people, but it's not as bad as what we're seeing with the reactions.
And I think that there are going to be far more adverse effects that show up years later in the form of autoimmune disorders, in the form of increased inflammation types of related diseases.
And I think that we're looking at some pretty serious consequences down the road.
Well said, Ana, about people standing their ground.
I think that you said that encapsulated that perfectly.
Because if we don't, basically it's just going to continue to get more.
Next it'll be you have to wear five masks and get how many other booster shots.
The vaccine manufacturers themselves have admitted on video that they don't really know if the vaccine will prevent you from getting the virus or transmitting the virus.
And this is a virus, mind you, that has a 99 plus percent survival rate.
And yet we have this experimental vaccine that's just being rolled out and plunged into the arms of millions of people.
There have been many...
Adverse events that people have experienced.
There has been a lot of people who have fallen like they're no longer with us.
And of course, they don't say that they can't determine if it was directly attributed to the injection or not.
Of course, they try to stay away from that.
But if you just do some searches in the news, the stories are out there.
So it's very concerning.
We don't know, like you said, what the effects are going to be down the road, a year or two or five down the road.
How does it affect fertility?
You know, there's a lot of unanswered questions.
And this is a very reckless approach at best, in my view.
Ana Garner, thank you so much for your time and your dedication.
I would very much like to have you on again soon to discuss updates in this case as well as the other important pending case.
So you mentioned earlier the website New Mexico Stands Up.
Is there anywhere else that you would like people to to go and visit?
I will leave links for the websites that you mentioned here.
Thank you.
And the proper name of it is NM for New Mexico.
NMStandsUp.org.
And thank you for leaving the link so that people can visit our site and donate to help with this effort.
Thank you.
Ana, any final points you'd like to include that we may have missed?
I just say stand your ground, please, everybody.
We are stronger if we're united.
We're stronger if we stand together.
Well, Ana, it was a pleasure having you on.
I'm so glad we're able to connect.
This is a very important case.
I wish you the best of luck, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.
I'll be watching this one closely, so thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Please be sure to share this interview around, as it is a very important case that could have a direct impact on many, many people.
Information is power, and people need to be aware of what is at stake and what they can do about it.
For activistpost.com, I'm Spiro.
▲
Export Selection