BERENSON reminds us of the madness, the over-reach, the criminality of the LIABILITY PROTECTION PREP ACT (Azar) early 2020 as they moved to protect vaccine makers, health agency officials, government

officials, medical doctors & in essence all the criminals in this fake false-positive PCR induced non-COVID pandemic; PREP ACT bars ALL suits due to the mRNA technology vaccine (Malone, Bourla, Sahin)

Substack is not allowing us to embed other stacks by other writers…so I will simply copy and paste…

Title:

URGENT: A new court ruling shows the insane overreach of the PREP Act, which effectively bars ALL suits over the Covid jabs (not just against Pfizer/Moderna, against anyone) (substack.com)

Start Berenson’s stack here:

‘URGENT: A new court ruling shows the insane overreach of the PREP Act, which effectively bars ALL suits over the Covid jabs (not just against Pfizer/Moderna, against anyone)

The PREP Act should be called the Goodfellas Act, because its guiding principle comes straight from the mob: F--- you, can't sue.

ALEX BERENSON

MAR 12, 2024

On Aug. 20, 2021, as his stepfather waited outside, a 14-year-old boy named Tanner Smith walked into a North Carolina high school for a Covid test.

But the testing area doubled as a vaccination center, and once Tanner arrived, he was told he needed a Pfizer mRNA Covid shot. He told the vaccinators he had come for a test, not a jab. They called Tanner’s mom. She didn’t answer. They made no effort to contact Tanner’s stepfather at all.

“Give it to him anyway,” one of the vaccinators said. So they did.

Almost exactly one year later, on Aug. 19, 2022, Tanner and his mother Emily Happel sued the county board of education and the medical group that had given him the shot for battery and violating their state and federal constitutional rights.

It seemed like an open-and-shut case.

And it was.

On Feb. 27, 2023, North Carolina state court Judge Lora C. Cubbage dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled under any circumstances. Last week, a three-judge panel of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the state’s second highest-court, unanimously upheld Cubbage’s ruling.

—

(We don’t make the law, we just (correctly) say it’s taken away any rights you had.)

SOURCE

—

The reason?

The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act - a December 2005 federal law known as the PREP Act - barred Tanner’s claims, the appeals court found. As Judge April Wood wrote:

[T]he immunity provided by the Act is extremely broad. The PREP Act provides immunity “with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or the use by an individual of a covered countermeasure” if [an emergency] declaration has been issued… [emphasis added]

Those “countermeasures” to the Covid epidemic include the Pfizer and Moderna jabs.

And North Carolina’s own laws did not apply to the vaccines, because the act “contains a broad provision preempting state law.” More specifically, the PREP Act bars states from applying any law that conflicts with its provisions barring suits.

So how broadly do those provisions stretch? To the

Design, development, clinical testing or investigation, formulation, manufacture, distribution, sale, donation, purchase, marketing, promotion, packaging, labeling, licensing, use, any other aspect of safety or efficacy, or the prescribing, dispensing, or administration by qualified persons of the covered countermeasure…

Whew.

That’s a lot of immunity. For a lot of people, governments, and companies.

—

The North Carolina appeals court is not alone in viewing the PREP Act as a get-out-of-jail free card for anyone connected with the Covid shots.

In December 2022, a federal court in Oklahoma tossed a suit from a woman who “alleged that she visited a Walgreens store for a flu vaccination but that a Walgreens employee administered a COVID-19 vaccination to the plaintiff without her knowledge.”

And in April 2023, a Kansas appellate court ruled a plaintiff could not sue Walmart “after one of its pharmacists administered a COVID-19 vaccine to her minor child without her consent.”

By all accounts, the PREP Act appears to be an airtight shield against lawsuits.

Theoretically, it allows suits in the case of “willful misconduct,” but it defines those words incredibly narrowly.

To meet the willful misconduct exception, an otherwise immune defendant must have done something “intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose” and “knowingly without legal or factual justification” and “in disregard of a known or obvious risk that is so great as to make it highly probable that the harm will outweigh the benefit.”

Don’t count on a friendly state court hearing your willful misconduct claim, either. The only court the PREP Act allows to hear suits is the federal court in the District of Columbia, maybe the bluest and most government-friendly jurisdiction in the country.

—

(I don’t have immunity. I have something better. All of you. Join me, for 20 cents a day.)

Upgrade to paid

—

Keep in mind, neither Tanner Smith nor the other plaintiffs in the recently dismissed cases were suing Pfizer or other drug companies over injuries from the jabs. For those injuries, the federal government theoretically offers possible payouts through what is called the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, or CICP.

Theoretically being the operative word.

As of January 1, 2024, Americans had filed almost 13,000 claims for injuries they claimed had occurred after Covid-19 jabs. The Injury Compensation Program has denied almost 2,200 and paid 11, all but one for myocarditis, with average payouts of about $4,000. It has not ruled on the remaining 10,600 claims.

—

(Trying to get paid for a vaccine injury? Good luck with that.)

SOURCE

—

In any case, the CICP program does not offer payouts for cases like Tanner Smith’s, where people sue because they or their kids received a Covid shot they didn’t want at all, or were forced to take it by their employer or university, or were otherwise pressured or bribed to take it.

In those cases, the PREP Act forecloses any and all compensation. Again, its only exception is for “death or serious physical injury” that is caused by “willful misconduct.”

In other words, if a nurse holds you down while another stabs you in the eye with a needle of mRNA as you scream, you still can’t get CICP compensation, but you might be able to sue.

Probably only if you wind up blind, though, considering how narrowly the act defines “serious physical injury.”

Nope, I’m not making this up.

I wish I were.’