NYC Vax Ruling: Too Soon To Celebrate?
NY Supreme Court Strikes Down Vax Requirement
Things are not always as they appear!
Friends, by now you've probably heard that the New York Supreme Court has issued a ruling striking down the vaccine requirements for NYC employees.
Of course, the government already put in their appeal.
While this ruling looks like good news on the surface — and it most certainly IS good news for the employees who were wrongfully terminated, harassed, discriminated against, and tormented—and who will now receive reinstatement, with back pay (as they should!)—there are some very troubling statements made by Supreme Court Judge Ralph Porzio in his ruling.
No one seems to have caught these troubling statements, except me!
Not ABC, CBS, NBS, Fox, Politico, Reuters, Yahoo, AP, the NY Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post...
Hmmm... as you know, I always like to dig deeper and read beneath the headlines -- and between the lines!
If you'd like to see exactly what I'm talking about, click on the video below to see my take on things, and be sure to join me M-F at 5:00 pm Pacific for my daily shows on my Youtube channel: The Healthy American Peggy Hall.
Because of Judge Porzio's decision, George Garvey and the other 15 plaintiffs who sued the City of New York will be able to reclaim their positions after being fired in February 2022 for not following the unlawful vax measures and will also be eligible for back pay.
Full decision and order by NY Supreme Court here: https://tinyurl.com/4xyb7ccp
While the Petitioner’s central argument is that the public employee vaccination requirement is unconstitutional, they also put forth this additional claim:
Furthermore, the Petitioner’s all claim, and provided laboratory documentation, that they have natural immunity to Covid-19 from prior infection(s).
If you know me, you will know why this rubs me the wrong way. The germ theory is simply that... a theory (an unproven theory). I don't fixate on the "science" because I am not convinced of the actual existence of this "virus" as there has never been any conclusive evidence presented otherwise. They want you to get lost in the medical jargon and argue about "the science" instead of focusing on the fact that ALL of these measures are unethical and unconstitutional. Allowing the government to establish the precedent that they can violate your God-given rights in "an emergency" for the sake of "public health" or "the common good" is a slippery slope, and I guarantee you will see many more emergencies, each one robbing you of more rights than the last.
A veterinarian will not even prescribe inflammatory medicine to an animal until they have done a complete blood panel to make sure the animal can handle the medication yet they are going to give every human an identical vaccine irregardless of age, physical or biological condition… none of that makes sense. The fact that they are claiming they do not need the vaccine because they already had “Covid” IS arbitrary and capricious. Why should anyone else have to be subjected to the vaccine requirement just because the Plaintiffs say they already had the “cooties” ??
They are treating this as a medical rather than a constitutional issue. Stop allowing them to drag you deep into the medical weeds.
Judge Porzio makes this statement that caught my eye
This Court does not have a basis to disagree with temporary vaccination orders during a public health emergency…
So the judge is okay with a temporary vaccination requirement? This statement bothers me. I do not see any circumstances whereby ANYONE can be forced against their will to become a human pin cushion. The Judge has a reason to disagree because there is no evidence that these orders are NECESSARY.
Let’s continue, shall we?
However, ordering and enforcing that vaccination policy on only a portion of the populace for an indefinite period of time, is akin to legislating. It appears that in issuing this indefinite order, usurping the power of the legislature, the Health Commissioner has acted beyond his authority.
Hey, at least the Judge reaffirmed what I have been saying since day 1: NO HEALTH OFFICER CAN MAKE A LAW. And the Judge also emphasizes that states of emergency are meant to be TEMPORARY.
Let’s look at the next troubling statement.
There is no doubt that vaccination mandates were enacted in the furtherance of a legitimate governmental purpose.
Why did Judge Porzio state this? There IS doubt. Where is his evidence for this statement? I do not care for this statement at all.
Let’s wrap up with the most startling statement in the entire ruling.
The vaccination mandate for City employees was not just about safety and public health; it was about compliance. If it was about safety and public health, unvaccinated workers would have been placed on leave the moment the order was issued. If it was about safety and public health, the Health Commissioner would have issued city-wide mandates for vaccination for all residents.
Wow. Are you reading what I am reading? City-wide requirements for vaccination for ALL residents in the name of “safety and public health.” This opens the door for the Health officer to actually issue a city-wide requirement for ALL residents IF it is about “safety and public health.” This is stated on the record by the Judge. He may not have meant it that way, but it is on the record and can be interpreted that way.
There are many positive aspects to this decision, but I felt the need to call attention to a few issues that I haven't heard anyone else raise.
Nevertheless, the judge's decision to order that those employees receive their jobs back is the right one. I concur with that, but some of his rhetoric gives me pause as it might serve as a model for litigation that doesn't turn out the way we want it to.
P.S. Many of you have partnered with me by financially supporting my work, and I am eternally grateful! For those who are able, please consider making a small one-time or monthly donation here.
As evil closes in, time is running out, so I need your help as we march for truth all the way to Heaven!
~ Peggy