EXCLUSIVE!!! THE LAWSUIT WE’VE BEEN WAITING FOR! Fauci and His COVID-19 Henchmen Sued to Personally Pay For Their Abuses!

FINALLY! The lawsuit we’ve all been waiting for! An exhaustively researched, very tightly reasoned, and persuasively pled complaint condemning the Government’s COVID-19 response was filed today in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to hold the minute martinet, Anthony “Fluttering Fastball” Fauci and his co-conspirators at DHHS, CDC, NIH, and FDA accountable for their reign of terror over America.

Forty three named and unnamed plaintiffs led by America’s Frontline Doctors have sued Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Xavier Becerra, both personally and in his official capacity, Director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Dr. Anthony Fauci, both personally and in his official capacity, Acting Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Dr. Janet Woodcock, both personally and in her official capacity, DHHS itself, FDA itself, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institute of Health (NIH), NIAID itself, and John and Jane Does I-V.

The theory of the case is that the EUAs were “the keys that unlocked the profit potential of the COVID-19 crisis,” enabling vaccine manufacturers to “reap billions of dollars in profit by exploiting the fears of the American people.” The complaint further alleges that the vaccines “have the potential to cause substantially greater harm than the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the COVID-19 disease” themselves.

Defendants are seeking civil money damages from Secretary Becarra, Dr. Fauci, and Dr. Woodcock personally.

The Complaint alleges that the Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) under which various “unapproved, inadequately tested, experimental, and dangerous” COVID-19 vaccines have been sold and administered are unlawful on multiple grounds and must be terminated immediately. The multiple grounds supporting termination of the EUAs, and by extension, administration of all COVID-19 vaccines, follows.

First, the Complaint alleges that the Emergency Declaration upon which the EUAs are all based was unjustified. Second, that the DHHS Secretary has failed to satisfy the “criteria for issuance” of the EUAs set forth in Section 546 of the Food, Drugs and Cosmetics Act 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(c). Third, that the DHHS Secretary has failed to satisfy the “conditions of authorization” mandated by § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A). If the District Court finds any of these grounds to be legally sustainable, the EUAs must as a matter of law be terminated.

Plaintiffs Seek Multiple Rulings and Damages From Individual Defendants The Plaintiffs are asking the District Court to review whether there was a true “public health emergency” and to find that, since there was no such actual emergency, that DHHS did not have the authority to declare such an emergency, which would likewise nullify the EUAs.

the EUAs were “the keys that unlocked the profit potential of the COVID-19 crisis”

The Plaintiffs are also asking the District Court to determine that the EUAs and extensions thereof are unlawful based on the grounds set forth above, that the Defendants have violated customary international law by engaging in non-consensual human medical experimentation, and that they have unlawfully failed to implement protections for human subjects in medical experimentation.

They are further asking the District Court to enjoin the enforcement of the overall “public health emergency” declaration and renewals, enforcement of the EUAs, and extension of the EUAs to children under the age of 16.

Finally, the Defendants are seeking civil money damages from Secretary Becarra, Dr. Fauci, and Dr. Woodcock personally.

The case is Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-00702-CLM. A copy of the complaint follows.

https://magainstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Americas-Frontline-Doctors-v.-Becarra-COMPLAINT-1-FILED.pdf

So no true conservative should object that he or she didn't suffer real, identifiable damage when Biden's "win" was certified despite executive branch officials in their states having not complied with statutory law? They had no standing, remember.

Assuming that you're talking about Pennsylvania and the suits filed on the election there I don't recall any dismissed for lack of standing. Some were dismissed for other reasons, others were ruled against and went through the appeals process up to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Some were appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which refused to take the case, but again standing didn't play into it. If you are referring to a specific case then perhaps you could identify it?

The state of Texas, and other states wishing to join the action against Pennsylvania, had no "real, identifiable damage" to object to the fact that Constitution was violated when the PA SoS failed to run an election in accordance with statute, and the PA governor certified those results?

No, they did not. How Pennsylvania manages its elections is Pennsylvania's business just as how Texas manages its elections it Texas' business.

All of those illegal aliens invading Texas aren't a burden to Texas, right?

How is that relevant to this discussion.

No court could issue an injunction to stop the steal?

Absent evidence then no court could issue such a ruling.

No, they did not. How Pennsylvania manages its elections is Pennsylvania's business just as how Texas manages its elections it Texas' business.

Right, and if Texas wanted to secede from the Union, that was Texas's business, not Pennsylvania's. If Texas wanted to have slaves that was Texas's business, not Pennsylvania. You make interesting arguments, but the historical record is different. There is also the small matter of the Guarantee Clause in the U.S. Constitution, which requires a "Republican form of government". In the language of the 18th Century, a guarantee by a state implied the use of force if necessary to impose it. Now, the Roberts Court says it is meaningless language, and one state can't demand that another state comply with its constitutional obligations. If the courts won't enforce the Guarantee Clause, what option is left to save the Republic?

How is that relevant to this discussion.

You appear to be suggesting that Texas suffered no damages from the installation of an illegitimate "president".

Absent evidence then no court could issue such a ruling.

Without discovery and subpoenas, the courts won't see the evidence, and things go around in logical circles like a dog chasing its tail.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.