Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Joy Garner, Individually and on Behalf of The Control Group, et al., Petitioners v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., President of the United States

Supreme Court briefMay 27, 2022

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No. ___________

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

____________

JOY GARNER, individually and on behalf of

THE CONTROL GROUP, et al.,

Petitioners,

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his official capacity as

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

____________

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit

____________

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

____________

GREGORY J. GLASER

RAY L. FLORES II

4399 Buckboard Dr., #423

Copperopolis, CA 95228

Ph: (925) 642-6651

greg@gregglaser.com

11622 El Camino Real

Suite 100

San Diego, CA 92130

Ph: (858) 367-0397

rayfloreslaw@gmail.com

COUNSEL OF RECORD

for Petitioners

QUESTION PRESENTED

Without a control group to establish a cause-andeffect relationship, ‘science’ is not science; it is

guesswork. True science requires control groups.

Since the start of the National Vaccine Program

(enforced by POTUS since 1962), chronic disorders

have ballooned in vaccinated people only, while

remaining relatively stable in the never-vaccinated

population. Logically, the government should study a

control group of never-vaccinated people (Petitioners)

or at least not destroy their group. Instead, POTUS

has directed and managed his subordinates to

vaccinate every American, including the control

group — the estimated 0.26% threatened group of

healthy, never-vaccinated people. Regardless of

intentions, and regardless of vaccine safety claims,

the President is destroying evidence. He is

destroying control groups’ Fifth Amendment right to

exist.

The government admits its mandatory vaccines

remain unstudied with a never-vaccinated control

group, such as Petitioners’ group (“Control Group”).

Petitioners’ Control Group is necessary to prove

any causation of harm. Government data confirm

more than one-half of vaccinated Americans suffer

lifelong debilitating chronic disorders (i.e., heart

disease, diabetes, autoimmune disorders). Yet, these

disorders affect less than 6% of the never-vaccinated,

according to evidence the Control Group introduced

in the District Court. Petitioners allege this simple

observation proves the President’s mandatory

vaccines harm most people. Conversely, for POTUS

to continue claiming his vaccines are safe and

effective still requires a genuine control group.

Either way, the Judiciary is needed to preserve the

evidence.

Petitioners requested declaratory and injunctive

relief to safeguard their constitutional rights and the

scientific method. The lower courts dismissed this

case, citing a lack of standing to sue the President,

without actually addressing any of the Control

Group’s scientific findings or even recognizing the

standing nexus itself: POTUS and his subordinate

agencies vigorously develop, approve, purchase,

promote, administer, and mandate vaccines harming

health.

Therefore:

Do the threatened members of the Control Group

have standing to sue the President for systematically

destroying their evidence and violating the panoply

of their constitutional rights?

iii

LIST OF PARTIES

In addition to the parties listed in the case

caption, Petitioners also include:

Joy Elisse Garner, individually and as parent of

J.S. and F.G.;

Evan Glasco, individually and as parent of F.G.;

Traci Music, individually and as parent of K.M.

and J.S.;

Michael Harris, individually and as parent of

S.H.;

Nicole Harris, individually and as parent of S.H.

RELATED CASES

Garner v. Biden, No. 2:20-cv-02470-WBS-JDP, 2021

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33862 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2021)

Garner v. Biden, No. 21-15587, 2022 U.S. App.

LEXIS 5223 (9th Cir. Feb. 28, 2022)

Garner v. United States Dist. Court for the E. Dist. of

Cal. (In re Garner), No. 21-70925, 2021 U.S. App.

LEXIS 14284, (9th Cir. May 13, 2021)

In re Garner, 142 S. Ct. 456 (2021).

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Petitioners have no corporate interests.

Petitioners are not a publicly-held corporation or

other publicly-held entity. No publicly-held

corporation or entity owns any stock in Petitioners.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTION PRESENTED ................................................... i

LIST OF PARTIES ......................................................... iii

RELATED CASES .......................................................... iii

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ....................... iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................... iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................. vii

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ........................... 1

OPINIONS BELOW .......................................................... 1

JURISDICTION ............................................................... 1

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED ..................... 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................. 3

A. Expert-verified health survey of

never-vaccinated Americans ........................... 3

B. White House notified of crisis and

destruction of evidence .................................... 7

C. District Court litigation .................................. 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(continued)

D. Ninth Circuit appeal ..................................... 15

Motion to appear as

unvaccinated lawyer ............................... 15

Two Judges recuse themselves .............. 15

Ninth Circuit opinion ............................. 16

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ............................. 16

A. The Question Presented is vitally

important, and mandatory

vaccination is recurring ................................ 16

Truth ....................................................... 17

Vaccine mandates threaten

Control Group’s right to exist ................ 17

Of fundamental social

significance ............................................. 20

Of fundamental legal

significance ............................................. 22

Lower court decision impedes

effectiveness of constitutional

litigation .................................................. 24

National in scope .................................... 25

Recurring ................................................ 27

B. This case presents an excellent

vehicle to protect a control group’s

right to exist .................................................. 30

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(continued)

C. The District Court erroneously

rejected the Control Group’s standing ......... 33

CONCLUSION ............................................................... 37

A PPENDICES

Appendix A:

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,

Memorandum Opinion (February 28, 2022) ..... A1

Appendix B:

U.S. District Court for the Eastern

District of California Memorandum and

Order (February 23, 2021) ................................ B1

Appendix C:

Garner, et al. First Amended Verified

Petition for Declaratory and

Injunctive Relief (January 25, 2021) ................ C1

vii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

FEDERAL CASES

Page

Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) ............ 20, 23–24

Brnovich v. Biden, No. CV-21-01568-PHX-MTL,

2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15137

(D. Ariz. Jan. 27, 2022) ........................................ 33

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka,

347 U.S. 483 (1954) .................................. 14, 26, 35

Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (2011) ........ 25

California v. Trump,

407 F. Supp. 3d 869 (N.D. Cal. 2019).................. 31

City of Huntington v. Amerisource Bergen Drug

Corp., No. 3:17-01362, 2020 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 142674 (S.D. W. Va. Aug. 10, 2020) ........ 31

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997)....................... 19

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)........................ 34

Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992)...... 33

Hawaii v. Trump,

878 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2017)................................ 33

Hazlehurst v. Sec’y of the HHS, No. 03-654V,

2009 U.S. Claims LEXIS 183

(Fed. Cl. Feb. 12, 2009) ........................................ 21

viii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(continued)

In re Bayer Phillips Colon Health Probiotics Sales

Practices Litig., Civil Action No. 11-03017,

2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58651

(D.N.J. Apr. 17, 2017, unpublished).................... 21

In re Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig.,

645 F. Supp. 2d 164 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ................... 21

Jacobson v. Massachusetts,

197 U.S. 11 (1905) .......................................... 29, 31

Juliana v. United States,

947 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2020) .................. 14, 27–29

Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,

504 U.S. 555 (1992) ........................................ 18, 23

McCulloch v. Maryland,

17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819) .............................. 19

Ne. Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen.

Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville,

508 U.S. 656 (1993) .............................................. 23

Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U.S. 455 (1973)............... 19

Open Door Baptist Church v. Clark County,

140 Wash. 2d 143 (2000) ...................................... 19

Pac. Legal Found. v. Watt,

529 F. Supp. 982 (D. Mont. 1981)........................ 32

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) ....... 19

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(continued)

Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo,

141 S. Ct. 63, 208 L. Ed. 2d 206 (2020) ............... 30

Santa Fe All. for Health & Safety v. City of

Santa Fe, No. 18-1209 KG/JHR, 2020 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 80196 (D.N.M. May 6, 2020) .......... 28

Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights

Organization, 426 U.S. 26 (1976) ........................ 23

Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans

United for Separation of Church and

State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (1982) ..................... 23, 25

Williams v. Edwards,

87 F.3d 126 (5th Cir. 1996).................................. 32

STATE CASES

End Lead Poisoning v. Koch,

138 Misc.2d 188, 524 N.Y.S.2d 314 (1987).......... 32

People v. Earp, 20 Cal.4th 826 (1999) ...................... 18

Yarbray v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.

261 Ga. 703, 409 S.E.2d 835 (1991) .................... 18

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(continued)

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Article II, § 1, Clause 8 ............................................... 1

Article II, § 3 .......................................................... 2, 34

Article III ................................................... 2, 14, 17, 29

First Amendment ........................................................ 2

Fourth Amendment ..................................................... 2

Fifth Amendment ............................................... i, 2, 18

Eighth Amendment ..................................................... 2

Ninth Amendment....................................................... 2

Tenth Amendment ...................................................... 3

Thirteenth Amendment .............................................. 3

Fourteenth Amendment .................................. 3, 26, 33

FEDERAL STATUTES

28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ...................................................... 1

28 U.S.C. § 2201 ........................................................ 36

50 U.S.C. § 1601-51 ................................................... 31

FEDERAL RULES

Fed. R. Civ. P. 57 Advisory Committee Notes ......... 35

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(continued)

OTHER AUTHORITIES

15 Moore’s Federal Practice –

Civil § 101.117 (2020) ......................................... 37

Combatting the National Drug Demand and

Opioid Crisis, 82 Fed. Reg. 50305

(Oct. 26, 2017) ..................................................... 32

Constitution of the United States of America:

Analysis and Interpretation, Article II,

§ 3 (Congressional Research Service, 2021) ...... 34

Declaration of Independence

(July 4, 1776), 1 Stat. 1 ...................................... 19

Klein, Kenneth S. Truth and Legitimacy (In

Courts), 48 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 1 (2016)................. 17

Kuhn, T., The Structure of Scientific

Revolutions (4th ed. 2012) .................................. 22

Law of War Manual, Department of

Defense, § 4.8.2 (2016)........................................ 19

National Emergencies Act,

Pub. L. 94-412, 90 Stat. 1255 (1976) ................... 31

Proclamation No. 9844,

84 Fed. Reg. 4,949 (Feb. 15, 2019) ...................... 31

xii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(continued)

INTERNET SOURCES

Biden to the unvaccinated: ‘Our patience is

wearing thin’, CNNPOLITICS (Sept. 9, 2021) ..... 17

Chief Justice Roberts, 2021 Year-End Report on

the Federal Judiciary (December 31, 2021) ........ 15

Mack, Hannah Mooney. New report highlights

more than 250 vaccines in development,

PHRMA (Aug. 18, 2016) ...................................... 27

Report: Medicines in Development for Infectious

Diseases 2020 Report, PHRMA

(Jul. 21, 2020) ..................................................... 27

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioners Joy Garner and The Control Group,

et al. respectfully petition this Court for a writ of

certiorari to review the decision of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in this case.

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the District Court for the Eastern

District of California, dismissing this case with

prejudice, is reported at Garner v. Biden, No. 2:20-cv02470-WBS-JDP, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33862 (E.D.

Cal. Feb. 22, 2021) and reproduced at Appendix B.

The decision of the United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit, upholding the dismissal, is

reported at Garner v. Biden, No. 21-15587, 2022 U.S.

App. LEXIS 5223 (9th Cir. Feb. 28, 2022) and

reproduced at Appendix A.

JURISDICTION

The Court of Appeals entered its decision

upholding dismissal with prejudice on February 28,

2022. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under

28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Article II, § 1, Cl 8

Before he enter on the Execution of His Office, he

shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I

do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United

States, and will to the best of my Ability,

preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of

the United States.”

Article II, § 3

[H]e shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully

executed...

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free

exercise thereof ...

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers, and effects, against

unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be

violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon

probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be

searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment

No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or

property, without due process of law ...

Eighth Amendment

[C]ruel and unusual punishments [shall not be]

inflicted.

Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain

rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by

the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the

States, are reserved to the States respectively, or

to the people.

Thirteenth Amendment

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except

as a punishment for crime whereof the party

shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within

the United States, or any place subject to their

jurisdiction.

Fourteenth Amendment

No State shall … deprive any person of life,

liberty, or property, without due process of law;

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the

equal protection of the laws.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. Expert-verified health survey of

never-vaccinated Americans.

In the year 2020, a patriotic grandmother,

Petitioner Joy Garner (“Garner”) accomplished

something unprecedented — a nationwide health

survey of the estimated 0.26% never-vaccinated

American population, resulting in a robust sample

(1,482 Americans) from across 48 states, with 99%

confidence in an interval with less than 0.04%

variance for accuracy. App. C25; D.Ct. Dkt. 31-2

(Survey Report). The survey was conducted for

purposes of this litigation.

In the sworn testimony of Control Group expert

Tina Kimmel, PhD (former employee of California

Department of Public Health), Garner’s statistical

data are more robust than many CDC data points

that set national policy:

Petitioners’ calculation methods are standard

in this field of public health research, and I

consider their pilot survey results to be highly

reliable. While Petitioners may have intended

to only conduct a “pilot” survey, the actual

results are above 99% statistically reliable.

Petitioners’ results exceed the reliability of

countless CDC-funded studies with lower

population sizes that are used to set public

health policy.

See D.Ct. Dkt. 16-3 at 6 (Dr. Kimmel Declaration).

Garner’s methods and results were approved by

six qualified experts who provided sworn declarations (three physicians, two PhDs, and one

statistician). Garner’s results agreed with every

other known study of completely unvaccinated

people, as every known study shows vaccination

harms individual health, because the nevervaccinated are exponentially healthier than the

vaccinated. App. C11, C19-20; D.Ct. Dkt. 16-6 at 9-14

(Dr. West Declaration).

Specifically, Garner’s survey calculated the

never-vaccinated are 1,242% healthier overall (12.4

times healthier), with 28 expert-verified scientific

graphs in confirmation. D.Ct. Dkt. 16-7 at 19-39.

Garner’s doctoral level team found it is

mathematically impossible that vaccines are

innocent. For example, one of the Control Group’s

graphs displays the astronomical odds that vaccines

are not implicated in America’s 60% chronic illness

rate: 1 in 245,083,100,778,672,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. App.

C11.

Extraordinary scientific evidence like the above

is cited abundantly in the pleadings. Another

example: Garner found zero heart disease among the

never-vaccinated. Yet, “[a]ccording to the American

Heart Association, 48% of American adults suffer

heart disease.” App. C2. How is that possible?

Another example: Garner found zero diabetes

among the 1,482 never-vaccinated Americans

surveyed, even though the condition is present in

10% of vaccinated Americans. App. C3. Garner’s

experts found it mathematically impossible for these

statistics to be random chance, i.e., that it could

somehow just be a fluke the never-vaccinated are

exponentially healthier than the vaccinated in every

single category.

Garner also confirmed that never-vaccinated

people are a threatened group, given that approximately 99.74% of the American population has been

exposed to vaccination at some level. App. C6.

Garner and her doctoral level scientific team also

produced probably the most comprehensive

compendium and analysis ever presented in a court

of law of government data exposing the risk of

vaccines:

• 442-page expert mathematics report using

government data shows that for every vaccine on

the CDC schedule, the risk of the vaccine is

clearly higher than the risk of the disease. D.Ct.

Dkt. 33-3.

• 4,414-page compendium of citations to exclusively mainstream sources, such as medical textbooks, high impact journals, and government

publications, proving that (a) vaccines are the

prime suspect in America’s pandemic of immune-

mediated disorders, (b) vaccines are unavoidably

dangerous, and (c) vaccines are sourced from

foreign suppliers such as Communist China.

D.Ct. Dkt. 4-2 through 4-4, and 5 through 14

(“PRJN1-3”).1

• 60-page expert statistics report confirming (with

two independent statistical methods) that

Garner’s survey data proved with above 99%

confidence that vaccines are causing America’s

pandemic of chronic illness. D.Ct. Dkt. 31-1.

• 18 graphs compiled from government data

evidencing that vaccines did not save America

from disease historically. Rather, historical data

confirm good engineering accomplished that goal

through improved living conditions (i.e.,

decreased crowding in cities, improved plumbing,

refrigerated food, advanced water filtration, solid

waste disposal). D.Ct. Dkt. 15 at 36-47.

• 10 graphs of national data showing a .99-.90

(“very high correlation”) between the rate of

increase in the vaccine schedule and the rate of

increase of immune-mediated illness in the

general population. D.Ct. Dkt. 15 at 24-34.

Garner’s expert team proved it is mathematically

impossible that vaccines are not the cause of over

90% of the chronic health problems suffered by

Americans today. Garner’s team concluded the

President’s vaccine programs have caused, and

continue to accelerate, this catastrophic public health

crisis. App. C.

The rate of children with chronic illnesses

doubles every 12 years, with no signs this trajectory

has been altered, so Garner’s experts concluded the

1 The 4,414 pages are compiled into three separate Petitioners’

Request[s] for Judicial Notice, designated herein as PRJNs 1–3.

destruction of our population’s health is imminent

without immediate corrective action via control

group science. D.Ct. Dkt. 16-4 at 11-12 (Dr. Hulstedt

Declaration).

B. White House notified of crisis and

destruction of evidence.

Petitioners (Garner and a representative group of

her survey participants) duly served the White House

and Department of Justice with approximately 5,000

pages of pre-litigation scientific materials in Autumn

2020. The Control Group requested the federal

government confirm Garner’s data and protect this

extraordinarily healthy and threatened group of

people. Petitioners received zero substantive response.

After waiting patiently three months, the Control

Group commenced this federal litigation in the

Eastern District of California.

C. District Court litigation.

Petitioners’ First Amended Verified Petition

sought declaratory relief (to declare a chronic illness

emergency) and a preliminary injunction (to uphold

informed refusal of vaccines without punishment or

coercion, thereby safe-guarding the scientific

method). App. C.

The Control Group’s standing was plainly stated

in the complaint:

• “Subordinate Executive Agencies are vigorously

involved in vaccine licensing, recommendation,

promotion, and product sales. ... The President is

the Chief Executive of the Subordinate Executive

Agencies that are vigorously involved in the

Predicament.2 State and their local health

agencies adapt and require federally approved

public health policies [] to be mandated (hereinafter “Govt. Mandates”). Govt. Mandates are

the final expression of federally approved public

health policies which together contribute to the

Pandemic.” App. C43-44.

• “Only Respondent as President of the United

States of America and Commander in Chief of

the Armed Forces (and this Court in respect of

him) has the authority to protect Petitioners

from the myriad and ever-shifting initiatives to

vaccinate every individual in America as much

as possible, which initiatives have stoked hatred

and vilification of unvaccinated Americans. See

[PRNJ2]. By promoting and supporting mass

vaccination programs, including but not limited

to the annual influenza vaccine program and

Covid-19 vaccination, Respondent has emboldened Subordinate Executive Agencies to

exacerbate the Predicament.” App. C50.

• “As further evidence of the concrete and

particularized injuries-in-fact that are both

actual and imminent in this case, Petitioners

have experienced aspects of the Predicament in

the emergence of Covid-19 from China. As

communist-style dictates continue to be

employed throughout portions of the world, the

United States has not remained unaffected.

Mandatory vaccination is already being publicly

supported by certain authorities within and

“Predicament” is the term assigned by Petitioners to the

current milieu of unscientific assumptions, varying by jurisdiction, along with shifting legal coercion techniques, in which

the President is challenged to take action to protect ‘control

groups’ as a matter of national security. See App. C15-16 (¶19).

without the United States of America even

though a Covid-19 vaccine has not even

progressed through minimal safety and efficacy

testing. Petitioners state this allegation not to

target any particular State or local rule within

the greater Predicament, but rather to evidence

the Predicament includes the actual and

imminent nature of the national security threats

of a mandatory Covid-19 vaccination in response

to the Chinese virus. Respondent has not abated

these threats, but rather Respondent has

emboldened them by actively promoting Covid-19

vaccination without providing the Suspension of

vaccine mandates or similar order to safeguard

the Nation from the loss of critical scientific

evidence.” App. C52.

• “There has never been an infectious disease that

has debilitated, injured, or threatened this

Nation’s actual survival to the extent these

immune system disorders currently do. See

[PRJN2]. If this trajectory is not altered in short

order, there will be very few productive

Americans left to pay the taxes required to

support any branch of government. Pharma, and

the governmental bodies that protect, cultivate,

and expand its powers, have now outgrown the

host. If these health injuries continue to devour

the American people at the present rates, this

Nation will collapse.” App. C57.

In the pleadings (including the PRJNs), the

Control Group proved the central role of POTUS in

nationwide mandatory vaccination. Specifically,

POTUS is currently:

a) Designing and producing federally vaccines that

are mandated (App. C18-19, C44-45; D.Ct. Dkt.

4-3 (PRJN2), p. 14, line 12 through p. 50, line 2;

p. 88, lines 3-11; p. 90, lines 23-27; p. 93, lines

19-27; p. 97, line 8 through p. 98, line 3);

b) Classifying and approving federally vaccines

that are mandated (App. C44-45, C62; D.Ct.

Dkt. 4-3 (PRJN2), p. 98, line 4, through p. 99,

line 6);

c) Producing federally the required vaccine

information statement on vaccines that are

mandated (App. C43-44);

d) Engaging federally in conflicts of interest

regarding vaccines that are mandated (App. C12

(¶14), C53-54; D.Ct. Dkt. 4-3 (PRJN2), p. 68,

line 17 through p. 70, line 22);

e) Purchasing federally vaccines that are

mandated (App. C43-44; D.Ct. Dkt. 4-3

(PRJN2), p. 70, lines 17-22);

f) Importing federally from Communist China

vaccines that are mandated (App. C25; D.Ct.

Dkt. 4-4 (PRJN3), p. 10, lines 20-21; p. 17, lines

2-3; p. 23, lines 12-13; p. 28, lines 3-5; p. 29,

lines 3-4; p. 45, lines 20-22);

g) Promoting

federally

vaccines

that

are

mandated, and promoting federally the policy of

mandates (App. C19, C43-44, C48-49; D.Ct. Dkt.

4-3 (PRJN2), p. 70, lines 17-22; p. 72, line 21

through p. 73, line 7; p. 74, line 14 through p.75,

line 23);

h) Distributing federally vaccines that are

mandated, to target and exterminate a control

group of unvaccinated Americans (App. C43-44;

D.Ct. Dkt. 4-3 (PRJN2), p. 72, line 21 through p.

73, line 7; p. 75, line 24 through p. 76, line 5);

i) Tracking federally vaccine injuries from

mandated vaccines in order to make false and

misleading safety claims to justify mandates

(App. C6-7, C55, C65; D.Ct. Dkt. 4-2 (PRJN1)

(representing approximately 100 pages devoted

to the nationwide crisis of immune-system

injuries, proving the United States government

funds and publishes studies of chronic illness to

conceal vaccine injury as the number one cause

of chronic illness); D.Ct. Dkt. 4-3 (PRJN2), p. 95,

line 7 through p. 96, line 10; p. 99, line 16

through p. 100, line 2);

j) Designing federally a vaccine injury tracking

system intended to fail and then falsely

reporting federally vaccine injuries from

mandated vaccines (App. C8-9, C12-14, C56,

C65; D.Ct. Dkt. 4-3 (PRJN2), p. 59, line 18

through p. 63, line 20);

k) Studying federally uptake of mandated vaccines

(App. C6-7, C43-44; D.Ct. Dkt. 4-3 (PRJN2), p.

80, lines 7-19; p. 100, line 3 through p. 101, line

11);

l) Failing federally to report to Congress on

vaccine safety (App. C44 (¶52B); D.Ct. Dkt. 4-3

(PRJN2), p. 99, lines 7-15);

m) Litigating federally vaccine injury cases from

mandated vaccines (App. C22-24);

n) Concealing federally that the primary cause of

the national health crisis is mandated vaccines

(App. C8);

o) Setting regulations federally for interstate

infectious disease control regarding mandated

vaccines (App. C43-44);

p) Funding federally health departments to enforce

vaccine mandates across the Nation (App. C41

(¶49B), C43-44, C73, C86-87; D.Ct. Dkt. 4-3

(PRJN2), p. 82, lines 1-9);

q) Enforcing vaccine mandates on Federal

properties and for Federally funded activities

(App. C41, C43-44; D.Ct. Dkt. 4-2 (PRJN1), p.

11, lines 8-10; D.Ct. Dkt. 4-3 (PRJN2), p. 76,

lines 8-18).

Meticulously vetted by qualified scientists, the

Control Group filed this unique case naming POTUS

Donald J. Trump, with the utmost respect, as

Defendant. The allegations were more cooperative

than accusatory, as this case is not about blaming

the President, but rather cooperatively solving a

scientific problem that requires the Constitution. For

example, the Control Group alleged, “Respondent’s

oversight (in the contronymical sense of the word,

hereafter ‘Oversight’) to protect Petitioners as

unvaccinated Americans is the actual and proximate

cause of Petitioners’ present and imminent injuries

as well as Petitioners’ requested remedy as alleged

herein.” App. C51.

The Control Group concurrently filed and

incorporated by reference their requests for judicial

notice, establishing the national health crisis is

caused by dangerous vaccines managed by POTUS

and sourced primarily from Communist China. App.

C8-9, C17, C24; D.Ct. Dkt. 4-2 through 4-4 and 5

through 14. The Control Group also cited expert

declarations filed in support of their Motion for

Preliminary Injunction. App. C19; D.Ct. Dkt. 16-17.

In the words of Control Group expert pediatrician LeTrinh Hoang, DO:

The public interest requires good science to

survey the health of the unvaccinated to save

this Nation’s life ... I love this Nation and I

want to see us thrive. I was born in Vietnam

and fled from communism. I am a

naturalized citizen, and a proud American.

D.Ct. Dkt. 17 (Dr. Hoang Declaration).

On January 29, 2021, Respondent filed a request

for continuance of the above referenced motions,

claiming Respondent needed more time to file a

motion to dismiss. D.Ct. Dkt. 24. The Control Group

opposed the motion by highlighting the transparent

reality that Respondent’s counsel was hoping District

Court Judge Shubb (who later recused himself after

the

Control

Group highlighted he

owned

approximately $500,000 in vaccine manufacturer

stock), would take the easy road to ‘lump all three

motions together’ and then simply dismiss the action

outright (which is indeed what happened) rather

than actually review and thoughtfully rule upon the

requests for judicial notice. D.Ct. Dkt. 25 (Opposition

to Continuance).

At the hearing on such motion, Judge Shubb set

an accelerated briefing schedule (giving the Control

Group only two business days) to file an opposition to

the motion to dismiss, on a Federal Court holiday.

D.Ct. Dkt. 27 (minutes for proceedings).

In his motion to dismiss, POTUS conceded: “A

facial motion to dismiss, such as this one, assumes

the truth of the well-pled facts in the complaint.”

D.Ct. Dkt. 28-1 at 10.

The District Court granted the motion to dismiss

with prejudice, albeit stating it took all allegations as

true for purposes of the motion. App. B4.

Although the complaint stated the President is

“vigorously involved” in government mandates that

only the President can remedy nationwide to save

America (App. C43-44), the District Court misquoted

the complaint out of context, claiming, “The first

amended complaint contains no allegation that any

department or agency of the federal government,

much less the President, is responsible for any of

their alleged injuries” and “plaintiffs even note that

there is no mandatory vaccine federal requirement.”

App. B5.

The District Court also mischaracterized the

complaint by stating, “there are no allegations in the

first amended complaint to support even an inference

that the injuries plaintiffs complain of are traceable

to any act or omission of the President” and “the

court cannot envision how anything it could

constitutionally order the President to do in this

action would remediate any of plaintiffs’ alleged

injuries.” App. B6-7.

This encapsulates the issue: the District Court

admitted it “cannot envision” declaring the Control

Group’s basic rights and enjoining POTUS in the

National Vaccine Program.3

The district court reasoned it was powerless

under Article III to declare mandatory vaccination

unlawful and cited the case Juliana v. United States,

947 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2020) (where plaintiffs

requested and were denied decades of unlimited and

vague judicial supervision over “climate change”).

However, the Control Group here requested only

a single focused court order upholding their

constitutional rights, in line with super precedent

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S.

483, 495 (1954) (first declaring nationwide ‘separate

is not equal’, then in the years afterwards fashioning

injunctive relief).

Petitions for writ of mandamus to the Ninth

Circuit and United States Supreme Court were

summarily denied without comment. Garner v.

United States Dist. Court for the E. Dist. of Cal. (In re

Garner), No. 21-70925, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 14284

3 “National Vaccine Program” refers to the administration of the

collection of federal laws, regulations, executive orders, etc.

concerning vaccines and vaccination from 1962 to date.

(9th Cir. May 13, 2021); In re Garner, 142 S. Ct. 456

(2021).

The Control Group concurrently appealed the

District Court’s dismissal to the Ninth Circuit.

D. Ninth Circuit appeal.

1. Motion to appear as unvaccinated

lawyer.

In the Autumn of 2021, the Ninth Circuit

requested dates for counsel to provide oral argument

in person. The Ninth Circuit requires Covid-19

vaccination before lawyers can enter the building, so

undersigned counsel (an unvaccinated lawyer) made

a motion to allow attendance in person rather than

by video. 9th Cir. Dkt. 25. The Ninth Circuit

promptly withdrew its request for oral argument and

denied counsel’s motion as moot. 9th Cir. Dkt. 32.

2. Two Judges recuse themselves.

Upon reading Chief Justice Roberts’ year-end

report referring to financial conflicts in the

judiciary,4 Petitioners filed two motions to recuse

affected judges owning vaccine manufacturer stock:

(1) Motion to Vacate Order and Judgment of

Dismissal, and for Disqualification of Judge

Shubb. D.Ct. Dkt. 48.

(2) Motion to Disqualify Circuit Judge Kim

McLane Wardlaw. 9th Cir. Dkt. 35-1.

4 Chief Justice Roberts, 2021 Year-End Report on

the Federal

Judiciary (December 31, 2021), https://www.supremecourt.gov/

publicinfo/year-end/2021year-endreport.pdf.

Ninth Circuit Judge Wardlaw recused herself

immediately. 9th Cir. Dkt. 36; Garner v. Biden, No.

21-15587, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 3255 (9th Cir. Feb.

4, 2022).

District Court Judge Shubb did the same and

also vacated all his previous orders, “the undersigned

judge [Shubb] hereby RECUSES himself from all

proceedings in this case nunc pro tunc, and the

Judgment and all orders entered by the undersigned

judge in this action are hereby VACATED and SET

ASIDE.” D.Ct. Dkt. 50.

3. Ninth Circuit opinion.

Over Petitioners’ objection, the Ninth Circuit

rejected Judge Shubb’s recusal in a footnote: “The

[district] court’s order had no effect, however,

because it was issued after Appellants filed their

notice of appeal in our court.” App. A2.

Then, in a very short and unpublished opinion,

the appellate court upheld the dismissal by restating

the same conclusions (re standing) in the district

court order. App. A.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

A. The Question Presented is vitally

important, and mandatory vaccination

is recurring.

Meticulously cited with government data,

Petitioners clearly alleged the President’s vaccines

are destroying the health and security of our nation.

App. C. Science can help get our country back on

track, but first, to do real science we need the

Constitution to protect control groups’ very right to

exist. We need Article III.

1. Truth.

This case vindicates a great truth: science needs

healthy natural people to exist in order to do control

group studies. It should ever be the province of the

Judiciary in cases and controversies to uphold that

which is true, and strike down that which is false.

See Kenneth S. Klein, Truth and Legitimacy (In

Courts), 48 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 1 (2016).

Cited by this Court and other courts all over the

world, the legal maxim suppressio veri is that

‘suppression of truth is an offense.’ It is indeed

suppressio veri for the government to destroy control

group evidence.

2. Vaccine mandates threaten

Control Group’s right to exist.

From their reasonable perspective, the Control

Group participants are natural people created by

God, but hunted by man.

Prior to launching his newest vaccine mandates

targeting the Control Group and others similarly

situated (i.e., the partially vaccinated), POTUS

stated publicly on September 9, 2021 regarding the

unvaccinated, “our patience is wearing thin, and your

refusal has cost all of us.”5

5 Biden to the unvaccinated: ‘Our patience is wearing thin’, CNN

POLITICS (Sept. 9, 2021), https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/

2021/09/09/biden-message-unvaccinated-americans-patience-sot

-lead-vpx.cnn.

As control groups of never-vaccinated Americans

are being destroyed by the President’s actions,

science will be dead on arrival soon, unless SCOTUS

issues a preservation of evidence order in this case.

The availability of zero control groups jeopardizes

our Nation in the increasingly scientific world of

2022, regardless of what is being studied. Clean air,

clean water, natural humans — all of these are

necessary for control group science, which is why

control group science is meaningful beyond measure.

This case can provide vital precedential value for

respecting control groups of natural humans on the

verge of extinction. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504

U.S. 555, 566 (1992) (regarding standing, “It is clear

that the person who observes or works with a

particular animal threatened by a federal decision is

facing perceptible harm, since the very subject of his

interest will no longer exist.”)

The right to exist is found in multiple areas of

constitutional law. See, e.g., Yarbray v. Southern Bell

Tel. & Tel. Co., 261 Ga. 703, 409 S.E.2d 835, 836

(1991) (“The right of privacy is embraced within the

absolute rights of personal security and personal

liberty. Personal security includes the right to exist

and the right to the enjoyment of life while existing.

... Personal liberty includes not only freedom from

physical restraint, but also the right ‘to be let

alone.’”)

The Fifth Amendment states the right to exist:

“No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or

property, without due process of law.”

Control Group participants are law-abiding

natural citizens and have never forfeited their right

to exist. See, e.g., People v. Earp, 20 Cal.4th 826, 895

(1999) (“once a defendant is convicted of a crime

carrying the death penalty, he or she necessarily

forfeits the right ‘to exist’”); Department of Defense,

Law of War Manual, § 4.8.2 (2016) (“Civilians may

not be made the object of attack, unless they take

direct part in hostilities.”)

Whereas “corporations [] derive their right to

exist from the State,” German All. Ins. Co. v. Lewis,

233 U.S. 389, 404 (1914), individuals receive their

right to exist from God. See, e.g., Declaration of

Independence (July 4, 1776), 1 Stat. 1 (“We hold

these truths to be self-evident, that all men are ...

endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable

Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the

pursuit of Happiness”); Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S.

681, 687 n.6 (1997) (upholding a private citizen’s

standing to sue the President and quoting

respectfully the District Court Judge, “even the

sovereign is subject to God”); Open Door Baptist

Church v. Clark County, 140 Wash. 2d 143, 186

(2000) (invalidating zoning ordinance because

“Church officials must plead to secular authority for

their very right to exist — an overreach by the State

that we have previously held – in a more benign

manifestation — to be oppressive.”); Norwood v.

Harrison, 413 U.S. 455, 462 (1973) (“In Pierce, the

Court affirmed the right of private schools to exist”)6;

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 400

(1819) (“This is the highest attribute of sovereignty,

the right to raise revenue; in fact, the right to exist;

without which no other right can be held or

enjoyed.”).

SCOTUS’ intervention is uniquely necessary

here because this Court shepherds the tool that

protects control groups of natural people: our

Constitution. There is no better tool. Nor is there a

safety net beyond the Constitution that will ensure

control groups can exist.

6 Referring to Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

Petitioners submit the instant control group

litigation is an excellent choice for SCOTUS to

invoke the “rarely” statement in Allen v. Wright, 468

U.S. 737 (1984):

The idea of separation of powers that

underlies standing doctrine explains why our

cases preclude … suits challenging, not

specifically

identifiable

Government

violations of law, but the particular programs

agencies establish to carry out their legal

obligations. Such suits, even when premised

on allegations of several instances of

violations of law, are rarely if ever

appropriate for federal-court adjudication.

Id. at 759-60 [emphasis added].

If this Court fails to invoke this “rarely”

statement, control groups can go extinct for political

reasons, which is antithetical to the idea that certain

absolute rights (i.e., to exist) are beyond political

compromises.

3. Of fundamental social significance.

For 60 years straight (National Vaccine

Program), the Office of the President has vaccinated

the whole herd, pushing vaccination without the

benefit of genuine control groups. App. C.

And now the genuine control group in America is

threatened at 0.26% of the population. App. C. So, do

these 0.26% never-vaccinated Control Group

participants have standing to respectfully sue

POTUS, to protect their constitutional rights to exist

as peacefully natural people? Yes, and the question is

important.

The most accurate statement about a genuine

control group is also the most succinct: “The control

group receives nothing.” In re Bayer Phillips Colon

Health Probiotics Sales Practices Litig., Civil Action

No. 11-03017, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58651, at *6 n.4

(D.N.J. Apr. 17, 2017, unpublished).

As catalogued in the Control Group’s requests for

judicial notice (D.Ct. Dkt. 4-3), POTUS has

disregarded this basic concept, as every vaccine on

his CDC schedule is approved using false ‘control

groups’ — false because they deviously include

partially vaccinated people only. The government

admits (D.Ct. Dkt. 4-3 §§8, 13-15) that its mandatory

vaccines remain unstudied with a fully unvaccinated

control group, such as Petitioners’ group.

Courts have recognized that the scientific

method requires a control group in order to

determine the baseline frequency of a disease. See,

e.g., In re Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig., 645 F. Supp.

2d 164, 185 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Indeed, the lack of a

genuine control group is a topic that comes up often

in vaccine injury claims court. See, e.g., Hazlehurst v.

Sec’y of the HHS, No. 03-654V, 2009 U.S. Claims

LEXIS 183, at *387 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 12, 2009) (“By

design, the control group has to be similar to the

experimental group but has to differ by the variable

of interest.”).

History has repeatedly shown vaccine science

disregarding the scientific method in favor of

corporate excuses for not performing genuine control

group studies. See D.Ct. Dkt. 4-3 (PRJN2).

An established scientific paradigm changes when

(a) independent science presents new compelling

data in conflict with the existing paradigm, and (b) a

reasonable alternative is offered to solve a real-world

problem.7 Both are present here.

We are witnessing today a scientific revolution in

the vaccine paradigm. The new data prove it is

already happening. The respected field of integrative

medicine (including Petitioners’ experts) are offering

the reasonable solution by achieving superior health

outcomes among the never vaccinated, whose

immune systems remain resilient. D.Ct. Dkt. 16-2

through 16-6, D.Ct. Dkt. 17.

4. Of fundamental legal significance

Undersigned counsel found precisely zero cases

referencing the word contronym. Here, the Control

Group structures this case upon both meanings of a

contronym:

Respondent’s oversight (in the contronymical

sense of the word, hereafter ‘Oversight’) to

protect

Petitioners

unvaccinated

Americans is the actual and proximate cause

of Petitioners’ present and imminent injuries

as well as Petitioners’ requested remedy as

alleged herein.

7 See, e.g., Kuhn, T., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (4th

ed. 2012), p. 122 (“Paradigms are not corrigible by normal

science at all. Instead, as we have already seen, normal science

ultimately leads only to the recognition of anomalies and to

crises. And these are terminated, not by deliberation and

interpretation, but by a relatively sudden and unstructured

event like the gestalt switch. Scientists then often speak of the

‘scales falling from the eyes’ or the ‘lightning flash’ that

‘inundates’ a previously obscure puzzle, enabling its

components to be seen in a new way that for the first time

permits its solution.”)

App. C, 48a.

So this case is also well positioned on the unique

question whether a contronym, as alleged herein,

may suffice for the second and third elements for

standing under Ne. Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen.

Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S.

656 (1993):

It has been established by a long line of cases

that a party seeking to invoke a federal

court’s jurisdiction must demonstrate three

things: (1) “injury in fact,” by which we mean

an invasion of a legally protected interest that

is “(a) concrete and particularized, and (b)

actual or imminent, not conjectural or

hypothetical,” Lujan, supra, at 560 (citations,

footnote, and internal quotation marks

omitted); (2) a causal relationship between

the injury and the challenged conduct, by

which we mean that the injury “fairly can be

traced to the challenged action of the

defendant,” and has not resulted “from the

independent action of some third party not

before the court,” Simon v. Eastern Kentucky

Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 4142, 48 L. Ed. 2d 450, 96 S. Ct. 1917 (1976);

and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be

redressed by a favorable decision, by which

we mean that the “prospect of obtaining relief

from the injury as a result of a favorable

ruling” is not “too speculative,” Allen v.

Wright, supra, at 752. These elements are the

“irreducible minimum,” Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for

Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454

U.S. 464, 472, 70 L. Ed. 2d 700, 102 S. Ct. 752

(1982), required by the Constitution.

Id. at 663-64.

This Control Group case is uniquely significant

because (although causation is alleged) the focus was

admittedly never blaming President Trump, but

rather the focus is redressability: the President is

uniquely situated to redress the Constitutional

violations.

A strong showing of redressability should be

allowed to bolster a lesser showing of causation,

provided both are present, especially because the

standard for causation is simply that the injury is

“fairly traceable.” Allen, 468 U.S. at 751.

Petitioners’ never-vaccinated control group study

comparison would not even exist but for POTUS’

National Vaccine Program. The reason is obvious —

without a vaccinated group, there is nothing with

which to compare an unvaccinated group.

To only point the finger is to miss the point.

Petitioners will admit (short of a retraxit) they do not

want to blame the President, or blame themselves, or

blame anyone. The Control Group just wants to exist,

and do so in a country that also exists.

Given the President’s special role to enforce the

Constitution and maintain the Republic, it is fitting

that he be the named Defendant for this unique case

regarding the right to exist.

5. Lower court decision impedes

effectiveness of constitutional

litigation.

If scientifically vetted cases can be dismissed

quickly on standing grounds, then constitutional

litigation is unable to effect checks and balances on

vaccines. Quick dismissals without discovery are

particularly dangerous because the federal National

Vaccine Injury Compensation Act already prevents

litigants from suing vaccine manufacturers.

Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (2011). So

constitutional litigation is the only practical check

and balance remaining in our legal system.

Indeed, given the pervasive conflicts of interest,

it is no recourse that agencies like the CDC and FDA

are tasked with regulating Big Pharma. D.Ct. Dkt. 43 (known conflicts in requests for judicial notice).

6. National in scope.

A control group is a unique plaintiff because it

spans multiple jurisdictions and is constantly

moving. The instant control group is nationwide

(spanning 48 states). There is not a single agency

Petitioners can sue to protect the Control Group’s

right to exist. Of all the roads that lead to the

Control Group’s destruction, the source is POTUS

with his National Vaccine Program.

Consider this Court’s wisdom in Valley Forge

Christian College v. Americans United for Separation

of Church & State, 454 U.S. 464, 474 (1982):

Proper regard for the complex nature of our

constitutional structure requires neither that

the Judicial Branch shrink from a

confrontation with the other two coequal

branches of the Federal Government, nor that

it hospitably accept for adjudication claims of

constitutional violation by other branches of

government where the claimant has not

suffered cognizable injury.

In America today, unvaccinated persons are

being segregated from vaccinated persons. In 12% of

the States, only the fully vaccinated children can

attend public and private school, as partially and

unvaccinated children are forced to homeschool.

D.Ct. Dkt. 4-3.

America should love and cherish its unvaccinated people instead of marginalizing and oppressing

them. It is time to learn from the history of

marginalizing an oppressed group for its natural

physical state. It is time to desegregate, right now, to

save this Nation. Not only is desegregation

calculated to rescue America from another embarrassing ‘separate-but-equal’ precedent, it is designed

to save America from destruction itself in an

exponentially escalating chronic illness emergency.

With the support of President Eisenhower in the

1950s, federal courts helped achieve desegregation

for children born black (born naturally black, just

like the never-vaccinated are born naturally

unvaccinated). Desegregation was achieved by

President Eisenhower despite pseudo-scientific

references of the day that attempted to claim blacks

were biologically inferior and would put whites in

danger if allowed to congregate together in schools.

See, e.g., Brown v. Bd., supra, 347 U.S. at 495:

We conclude that in the field of public

education the doctrine of “separate but equal”

has no place. Separate educational facilities

are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold

that the plaintiffs and others similarly

situated for whom the actions have been

brought are, by reason of the segregation

complained of, deprived of the equal

protection of the laws guaranteed by the

Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court in Brown v. Bd. famously fashioned a

comprehensive nationwide desegregation remedy

enforced by ongoing judicial supervision at the

district court level.

7. Recurring.

There comes a time for everyone to want to

decline a vaccine — perhaps an annual flu shot, a

Covid-19 booster, the recalled swine flu vaccine the

day before the recall, or any of the 250-plus vaccines

currently in R&D, according to the trade publication

PhRMA.8

Once people see their red line, they become

grateful that groups like the Control Group exist and

tirelessly advocate for all Americans.

With regard to standing specifically, it is

important for this Court to clarify how the

Constitution protects the fundamental right of

natural control groups to exist.

The principled dissent in Juliana v. United

States, 947 F.3d at 1177, 1180 (constitutional case

alleging “public health system collapse, and the

extinction of increasing numbers of species”)

indicates this issue will continue to recur until

distinctions are clarified:

[U]nlike the majority, I believe the

government has more than just a nebulous

“moral responsibility” to preserve the Nation.

...

8 Report: Medicines in Development for Infectious Diseases 2020

Report, PHRMA (Jul. 21, 2020), https://phrma.org/resourcecenter/Topics/Report/Medicines-in-Development-for-InfectiousDiseases-2020-Report; Hannah Mooney Mack, New report

highlights more than 250 vaccines in development, PHRMA

(Aug. 18, 2016), https://catalyst.phrma.org/new-report-high

lights-more-than-250-vaccines-in-development.

Nor can the perpetuity principle be rejected

simply because the Court has not yet had

occasion to enforce it as a limitation on

government conduct.

...

The mere fact that we have alternative means

to enforce a principle, such as voting, does not

diminish its constitutional stature. Americans can vindicate federalism, separation of

powers, equal protection, and voting rights

through the ballot box as well, but that does

not mean these constitutional guarantees are

not independently enforceable. By its very

nature, the Constitution “withdraw[s] certain

subjects from the vicissitudes of political

controversy, to place them beyond the reach

of majorities and officials and to establish

them as legal principles to be applied by the

courts.”[] When fundamental rights are at

stake, individuals “need not await legislative

action.” [Citations omitted.]

Id.; see also Santa Fe All. for Health & Safety v. City

of Santa Fe, No. 18-1209 KG/JHR, 2020 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 80196, at *17 (D.N.M. May 6, 2020):

Unlike the plaintiffs in Juliana, Plaintiffs

here do not ask the Court to demand action

by another branch of government or engage in

policy making or supervision. Instead,

Plaintiffs seek a ruling that laws that prevent

local governments from considering the

harmful effects of [radiofrequency emissions]

are unconstitutional. Accordingly, Plaintiffs

are correct that their claims are distinguishable from those in Juliana, where the

court emphasized the plaintiffs did not assert

the violation of a procedural right or an

otherwise “discrete and particularized injury

necessary for Article III standing.” Juliana v.

United States, 947 F.3d at 1174.

While invoking certain principles articulated by

the Juliana dissent, Petitioners nevertheless

distinguish this case from Juliana (cited by the

District Court). The Juliana plaintiffs sued

numerous defendants and identified myriad sources

for “climate change”; the instant case is pled with a

single culprit — Respondent’s federally sourced

vaccines. The Juliana plaintiffs asked for decades of

unlimited and vague judicial supervision. By

contrast, the Control Group here asks for limited,

short-term, and specific relief — a single court order

confirming, for example, the right to decline

vaccination without penalty (i.e., natural people can

exist).

The Control Group remembers Justice Harlan’s

words in 1905:

There is, of course, a sphere within which the

individual may assert the supremacy of his

own will and rightfully dispute the authority

of any human government, especially of any

free government existing under a written

constitution, to interfere with the exercise of

that will.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 29 (1905).

An American’s “supremacy of will” to remain

peacefully natural should be non-discretionary and

non-negotiable in the most fundamental sense. As for

the rest of Jacobson, Petitioners seek the end of such

case in the very place it was forged.

B. This case presents an excellent vehicle

to protect a control group’s right to exist.

This case is an excellent vehicle to resolve the

question presented because:

• Scientifically vetted. The record is authoritatively cited. With her doctoral level

scientific team, Garner produced probably the

most comprehensive compendium and analysis

ever (in a court case) of government data

exposing the risk of vaccines.

• Undisputed. The record is complete and the

facts are undisputed for purposes of the

appeal.

• Case Dispositive. The district court decided

the question presented, which was case

dispositive.

• Emblematic. The facts here are emblematic

of how this constitutional issue generally

arises, where an unvaccinated person is denied

access to normal life (i.e., denied school, denied

employment, denied access to government

buildings).

• Representative. With 1,482 never-vaccinated

participants, the Control Group represents the

largest known fully unvaccinated cohort in the

country. It is therefore statistically representative of our Nation’s never-vaccinated people.

During emergencies, this Court is especially

needed to defend the Constitution. See e.g., Roman

Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63

(2020) (granting injunction against Governor

Cuomo’s public health restrictions on religious

services because the restrictions were not actually

serving public health in a manner consistent with

the Constitution. Justice Gorsuch concurred:

Why have some mistaken this Court’s modest

decision in Jacobson for a towering authority

that overshadows the Constitution during a

pandemic? In the end, I can only surmise that

much of the answer lies in a particular

judicial impulse to stay out of the way in

times of crisis. But if that impulse may be

understandable or even admirable in other

circumstances, we may not shelter in place

when the Constitution is under attack.

Things never go well when we do.

Id. at 71.

Petitioners clearly alleged our Nation is in

deadly peril because chronic disease rates are greater

than 50% and rising, which is an emergency

pandemic by any standard. App. C.

It is the President’s job to declare an emergency

when an immediate threat exists, even if that

immediate threat is decades old. See, e.g., California

v. Trump, 407 F. Supp. 3d 869 (N.D. Cal. 2019):

[T]he President invoked his authority under

the National Emergencies Act (“NEA”), Pub.

L. 94-412, 90 Stat. 1255 (1976) (codified as

amended at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1601-51), and

declared that “a national emergency exists at

the southern border of the United States.”

Proclamation No. 9844, 84 Fed. Reg. 4,949

(Feb. 15, 2019) (“Proclamation No. 9844”).

Id. at 879; see also City of Huntington v.

AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp., No. 3:17-01362, 2020

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142674, at *18 n.4 (S.D. W. Va.

Aug. 10, 2020)(“on October 26, 2017, President

Trump directed the Secretary of Health and Human

Services to declare the opioid crisis a Public Health

Emergency. See Combatting the National Drug

Demand and Opioid Crisis, 82 Fed. Reg. 50305 (Oct.

26, 2017).”)

Petitioners have cited federal case law showing

that when an executive fails to act during an

emergency, the courts are equipped to declare the

emergency and engage in ongoing supervision of

remedies.9

Although methods of enforcement may be discretionary, enforcement itself is subject to

mandamus,10 and clear cases of emergency are

particularly ripe for mandamus. See, e.g., Williams v.

Edwards, 87 F.3d 126, 128 (5th Cir. 1996) (“By 1989,

conditions in Louisiana prisons had so deteriorated

that the district court declared a “state of emergency”

and appointed an expert to assist in resolving these

problems.”)

In Pac. Legal Found. v. Watt, 529 F. Supp. 982

(D. Mont. 1981) the court upheld a statute

empowering a House committee to declare an

“emergency situation” with regard to public lands

and to direct the Secretary of the Interior to

withdraw the lands from mineral leasing activities.

The court construed the statute narrowly, however,

as leaving to the Secretary the decision on the scope

9 See, e.g., Petitioners’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, D.Ct.

Dkt. 16-1.

See End Lead Poisoning v. Koch, 138 Misc.2d 188, 524

N.Y.S.2d 314 (1987) (overruling motion to dismiss on the

grounds that the lead-based paint problem persists so the

government must take some action to abate lead-based paint;

“Although the method of enforcement may be discretionary,

enforcement is not.”)

and duration of the withdrawal, so as to avoid

problems under the separation of powers doctrine.

Similarly, in Brnovich v. Biden, No. CV-2101568-PHX-MTL, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15137, at

*49-51, 89 (D. Ariz. Jan. 27, 2022) the court upheld

standing to sue the President for constitutional

claims such as Fourteenth Amendment equal

protection arising out of a Covid-19 vaccine mandate

on federal contractors:

Moreover, judicial review of Plaintiffs’ claims

obtains because “review of the legality of

Presidential action can ordinarily be obtained

in a suit seeking to enjoin the officers who

attempt to enforce the President’s directive.”

Franklin[v. Massachusetts], 505 U.S. [788] at

828 [(1992)] (Scalia, J., concurring in part and

concurring in the judgment). Here, Plaintiffs

seek to enjoin not only the President, but also

the officers and entities charged with carrying

out his instructions. See Hawaii [v. Trump],

878 F.3d [662] at 680-81 [(9th Cir. 2017)]. The

Contractor Mandate is not self-executing; it

involves a substantial number of officials and

entities within the executive apparatus that

are unquestionably subject to this Court’s

equitable jurisdiction. Thus, that Plaintiffs’

claims implicate presidential action and raise

questions regarding presidential authority

does not preclude judicial review.

C. The District Court erroneously rejected

the Control Group’s standing.

The law recognizes that POTUS can be sued for

actions of subordinates that POTUS knows, or

reasonably should know, cause subordinates to

violate rights.11

Dismissal is appropriate only where “it appears

beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of

facts in support of his claim which would entitle him

to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45–46 (1957).

The District Court ignored the most important

allegations in the complaint establishing jurisdiction

and the dire national security emergency. Although

the District Court claimed it took all allegations as

true and in the Control Group’s favor, the

transparent reality is that Judge Shubb ruled instead

upon a perception of the case outside the pleadings.

See Order, App. B4 and discussion, supra, at

Statement of the Case, section C.

The Control Group clearly alleged the National

Vaccine Program is the President’s human medical

experiment and the President is “vigorously involved”

in government mandates that only the President can

remedy nationwide to save America. See, e.g., App.

C14-15, C43-44. All of the States are entwined with,

and do execute, the vaccine policies of POTUS. D.Ct.

Dkt. 4-3 (PRJN2).

Only the President must answer for his wrongful

actions causing the disastrous public health pled in

the Verified Petition. It would be highly inappropriate, futile, and impossible to join countless

subordinates and departments across unknown jurisdictions. The Control Group is not centrally located.

See, e.g., Congressional Research Service (2021) United

States Constitution Annotated, Art. II, §3, The President As

Law Enforcer (“The general rule, as stated by the Court, is that

when any duty is cast by law upon the President, it may be

exercised by him through the head of the appropriate

department, whose acts, if performed within the law, thus

become the President’s acts.” [citations omitted]).

The District Court was correct that the President

is not the alleged “sole” cause of the Predicament.

App. B5. Yet the District Court failed to appreciate

that the President incentivized state and municipal

agencies to implement and enforce his vaccine agenda

nationwide in order to assure that all Americans are

eventually injected with all of the President’s

“approved” vaccines. D.Ct. Dkt. 4-3 (PRJN2).

As with Brown v. Bd., 347 U.S. at 495 (first

declaring the right, then fashioning injunctive relief),

declaratory relief is the first thing the District Court

should have ruled upon, because well-fashioned

declaratory relief can “create the remedy” and

“terminate the controversy.”12 Respectfully, the

District Court’s erroneous reasoning is that

declaratory relief cannot issue without injunctive,

because district courts are apparently powerless to

stop States from mandating vaccination:

Even if the court granted the declaratory or

injunctive relief sought by plaintiffs, it would

not invalidate the provisions of California law

— or similar provisions in other states’ laws —

which allegedly require students to be

vaccinated in order to attend school. (See First

Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 40(h), 41(h).)

App. B8.

12 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (“Creation of Remedy”) states, “any court of

the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading,

may declare the rights and other legal relations of any

interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not

further relief is or could be sought.” See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 57

Advisory Committee Notes (“A declaratory judgment is

appropriate when it will ‘terminate the controversy’ giving rise

to the proceeding.”).

In other words, the District Court found that, in

advance of the creation of any remedy (via a

declaration of rights) the Control Group must be

denied any opportunity to create a remedy, on

grounds that enforcement of a remedy (injunctive

relief) is not available in advance of the creation of

that remedy via declaratory relief. This is circular

and backwards logic. To claim that one must already

have their remedy in hand before seeking the

“creation of a remedy” through declaratory relief is to

claim that 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (“Creation of Remedy”)

does not exist at all.

Nor is it a political question whether POTUS

should either (a) save America from statistically

certain destruction by chronic illness, or (b) medically

experiment upon Americans without their consent.

Nowhere in the Constitution is any branch of

government granted the power to use biological

alteration drugs to experiment upon Americans

without their consent.

Here, Petitioners carefully pled around any

political questions. App. C45, C69 (¶93):

Petitioners do not seek justiciability over any

political questions … the imperative of

recognizing the judicially noticeable facts and

taking some appropriate action reasonably

engineered to prevent the collapse of this

Nation and prevent further harm to its people,

is neither discretionary nor political. The tool

of the Executive Order has been utilized

historically to accomplish nationwide relief

against countless State and local laws

oppressing individuals across jurisdictions —

for example, when President Abraham

Lincoln freed slaves by Executive Order,

blacks were not a protected class. When

President Dwight Eisenhower used the tool of

the Executive Order to desegregate schools

(with the cooperation of the Federal Courts),

he upheld civil rights by preempting

oppressive State and local laws across the

country.

As confirmed in 15 Moore’s Federal Practice –

Civil § 101.117 (2020), “the courts have invoked the

political question doctrine primarily in cases

involving housekeeping matters,” with examples

provided such as regulation of political parties, the

electoral process, and enforcement of treaties.

None of these situations apply here. Certiorari is

appropriate.

CONCLUSION

At this critical time in our Nation’s history, with

its very survival in the balance, Petitioners

respectfully request that this Court grant a writ of

certiorari.

Respectfully submitted,

GREGORY J. GLASER

Counsel of Record

for Petitioners

4399 Buckboard Dr., #423

Copperopolis, CA 95228

Ph: (925) 642-6651

greg@gregglaser.com

RAY L. FLORES II

11622 El Camino Real

Suite 100

San Diego, CA 92130

Ph: (858) 367-0397

rayfloreslaw@gmail.com

Counsel for Petitioners

APPENDIX A

FILED

FEB 28 2022

Molly C. Dwyer, Clerk

U.S. Court of appeals

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOY GARNER, individually

and on behalf of The Control

Group; et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, in his

official capacity as President

of the United States of

America,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 21-15587

D.C. No.

2:20-cv-02470WBS-JDP

MEMORANDUM**

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 24, 2022****

San Francisco, California

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not

precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for

decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Before: IKUTA, MILLER, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Joy Garner, individually and on behalf of The

Control Group — a non-profit organization that

surveyed unvaccinated individuals for the purposes

of this litigation—and a group of parents, who sue

individually and on behalf of their minor children

(collectively, Appellants), appeal the district court’s

dismissal of their complaint against the President of

the United States in his official capacity for lack of

standing. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we affirm.1

Appellants’ First Amended Complaint (FAC)

does not plausibly allege a causal connection between

Appellants’ alleged injuries and any actions by the

President. Because Appellants’ alleged injuries,

ranging from being discriminated against due to local

vaccine mandates to “the mathematically proven

imminent dissolution of America from within,” are

1 We note the district court’s February 11, 2022 order (Dkt. No.

39), which purported to vacate the order on appeal. The court’s

order had no effect, however, because it was issued after

Appellants filed their notice of appeal in our court. See Matter of

Visioneering Constr., 661 F.2d 119, 124 n.6 (9th Cir. 1981)

(“Once a notice of appeal is filed jurisdiction is vested in the

Court of Appeals, and the trial court thereafter has no power to

modify its judgment in the case or proceed further except by

leave of the Court of Appeals.”). Neither party requested leave

for a limited remand to the district court to issue an indicative

ruling. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1; Fed. R. App. P. 12.1. Assuming

without deciding that we may nonetheless remand in these

circumstances, Mendia v. Garcia, 874 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir.

2017), we decline to do so here. Instead, we exercise our

jurisdiction to determine de novo whether Appellants have

standing. Cf. United States v. Rodriguez, 851 F.3d 931, 938–39

(9th Cir. 2017) (concluding that “a remand to the district court

would be superfluous” when this court was required to conduct

de novo review on appeal).

not “fairly traceable to the challenged action[s] of the

defendant,” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S.

555, 560 (1992) (cleaned up), Appellants lack

standing. As Appellants note in their FAC, there is

no federally mandated vaccine requirement; instead,

the CDC recommends various vaccine schedules, and

state and local governments adopt their own

mandates based on those recommendations.

Appellants’ FAC does not allege any plausible

connection between any of the President’s actions

and the injuries Appellants have allegedly suffered

as a result of state and local vaccine requirements.

Further, because Appellants seek declaratory

and injunctive relief that we cannot grant against

the President of the United States, such as ordering

the President to conduct a national survey, see

Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159, 1171 (9th

Cir. 2020), Appellants’ alleged injuries are not likely

to be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan, 504

U.S. at 561 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Finally, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying leave to amend because

permitting leave to amend would have been futile.

See Perez v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 959

F.3d 334, 340–41 (9th Cir. 2020).

AFFIRMED.

APPENDIX B

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

▬▬▬▬▬▬••●••▬▬▬▬▬▬

JOY GARNER, individually and on

behalf of The Control Group; JOY

ELISSE GARNER, individually

and as parent of J.S. and F.G.;

EVAN GLASCO, individually and

as parent of F.G.; TRACI MUSIC,

individually and as parent of

K.M. and J.S.; MICHAEL

HARRIS, individually and as

parent of S.H.; NICOLE HARRIS,

individually and as parent of S.H.,

Plaintiffs,

No. 2:20-cv02470-WBS-JDP

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, in his official

capacity as PRESIDENT OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:

DEFENDANTS’S MOTION TO DISMISS,

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION, AND PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR

JUDICIAL NOTICE

▬▬▬▬▬▬••

●••▬▬▬▬▬▬

Plaintiffs Joy Garner, individually and on behalf

of The Control Group, Joy Elisse Garner, individually

and as parent of J.S. and F.G., Evan Glasco,

individually and as parent of F.G., Traci Music,

individually and as parent of K.M. and J.S., and

Michael and Nicole Harris, individually and as

parent of S.H., (“plaintiffs”) brought this action

against Defendant President Joseph R. Biden (“the

President”) attempting to allege violations of the

presidential oath of office, the First Amendment,

various violations of the Due Process Clause of the

Fifth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the

Eighth Amendment, the Thirteenth Amendment, the

Fourteenth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, and

the Tenth Amendment.

Presently before the court are the President’s

Motion to Dismiss plaintiffs’ first amended complaint

(“Mot. To Dismiss”) (Docket No. 28.), plaintiffs’

Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Mot. for Prelim.

Inj.”) (Docket No. 16), and plaintiffs’ Motion for

Judicial Notice (“Mot. for Judicial Notice”) (Docket

No. 4).

Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff Joy Garner founded and operates The

Control Group, a non-profit organization that

surveyed unvaccinated individuals for the purpose of

this litigation. (See First Am. Compl. at ¶ 37.)

(Docket No. 21). Garner lives in Roseville, California.

(See id. at ¶ 36.) On July 4, 2020, the Control Group

completed its tabulations of the results to date from

its nationwide pilot survey of 1,482 completely

unvaccinated Americans of all ages. (See id. at ¶ 37.)

Plaintiffs Elisse Garner and Evan Glasco have

two minor children, J.S. and F.G., who are

unvaccinated. (See id. at ¶ 40.) They live in Grass

Valley, California. (See id.) J.S. and F.G. are

allegedly unable to go to public or private school in

California, although they would like to, because

California Health and Safety Code § 120325 requires

vaccinations for school children to attend school

unless they have a medical excuse. (See id. at ¶

40(h).) Garner and Glasco have religious objections to

vaccines and believe that there are serious health

risks associated with vaccines. (See id. at ¶ 40(g–i).)

Garner and Glasco also state that they have been

denied “access to certain professions for themselves,

not only within the state of California, but in many of

the most populated American States they might wish

to move to in the future.” (See id. at ¶ 40(i).)

Plaintiffs Michael and Nicole Harris are the

parents of S.H., an unvaccinated child. (See id. at ¶

41.) They live in Carlsbad, California. (See id.) They

have religious objections to vaccines. (See id. at ¶

41(g).) S.H. is allegedly unable to go to public or

private school in California, although he would like

to, because California Health and Safety Code §

120325 requires vaccinations for school children to

attend school unless they have a medical excuse. (See

id. at ¶ 41(h).)

Plaintiff Traci Music is the parent of K.M. and

J.S., two unvaccinated children. (See id. at ¶ 42.) The

Music family lives in Alabama but may be

transferred to another state during the pendency of

the proceeding because Music’s husband is an officer

in the military. (See id.) Music has a religious

objection to vaccination. (See id. at ¶ 42(g).) Music

also contends that her child S.S. suffered from

multiple injuries as a result of vaccination, including

legal blindness in her left eye and partial deafness.

(See id. at ¶ 42.) Music allegedly felt extreme

pressure to vaccinate S.S. by a physician in Arizona

who threatened to contact Arizona Child Protective

Services if she did not vaccinate S.S. (See id. at ¶

42(j).) While living in North Carolina, Music also

claims to have been the subject of an anonymous and

complaint to North Carolina Child Protective

Services where the basis of the complaint was that

Music was homeschooling her children and did not

vaccinate them. (See id. at ¶ 42(k).) Given the Music

family’s active military status, the Music family

“remains in a constant state of uncertainty” whether

they will find themselves unexpectedly and

unpredictably in a state that does not recognize a

religious exemption to vaccination. (See id. at ¶

42(h).)

Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction to

guarantee that an unvaccinated control group (i.e. a

group of completely unvaccinated Americans who

could be studied in comparison to vaccinated

Americans)

remain

intact

and

free

from

discrimination and coercion with respect to their

military service, education, livelihood, and religious

freedom. (See Mot. for. Prelim. Inj. at 2.)

II. Discussion

A motion to dismiss for lack of a case or

controversy under Article III of the Constitution

must be analyzed under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(1). See Chandler v. State Farm Mut.

Auto. Ins. Co., 598 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 2010);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). On such a motion the court

must accept as true all material allegations in the

complaint and must construe the complaint in the

nonmovant’s favor. See Bernhardt v. County of Los

Angeles, 279 F.3d 862, 867 (9th Cir. 2002). The court

may not speculate as to the plausibility of the

plaintiff’s allegations. See id.

The

Constitution

limits

federal

courts’

jurisdiction to cases and controversies, which

includes the requirement that each plaintiff have

standing with respect to each claim he or she asserts.

See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559–

60 (1992). To establish standing, a party must

demonstrate three elements. See id. at 560. First, the

plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact” — an

invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a)

concrete and particularized and (b) actual or

imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. See id.

Second, there must be a causal connection between

the injury and the conduct complained of; the injury

has to be “fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged

action of the defendant and not ... th[e] result [of] the

independent action of some third party not before the

court.” Id. Third, it must be “likely” as opposed to

merely “speculative” that the injury will be

“redressed by a favorable decision.” Id. at 561. The

party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden

of establishing these elements. See id.

For the purposes of this discussion, the court

assumes, but does not decide, that plaintiffs can

demonstrate that they have suffered an injury in

fact. However, plaintiffs acknowledge multiple times

that the President “is not the sole cause of” their

purported injuries. (See First Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 20,

117, 127, 144, 148, 157, 163.) That is an

understatement. The first amended complaint

contains no allegation that any department or agency

of the federal government, much less the President,

is responsible for any of their alleged injuries. To the

contrary, plaintiffs even note that there is no

mandatory vaccine federal requirement and that the

Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) recommended

vaccine schedules are not mandated. (See First Am.

Compl. at ¶ 52(a).)

Instead, plaintiffs allege throughout their first

amended complaint that the actions complained of

are the result of independent actions by third parties

not before the court. Several plaintiffs complain that

their children are unable to attend school in

California because they have religious objections to

vaccination. (See id. at ¶¶ 40(h), 41(h).) However, as

plaintiffs acknowledge, it is not a federal law that

prohibits their children from attending school in

California, but a law passed by the state of

California. See Cal. Health & Welfare Code § 120325;

(See First Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 40(h), 41(h).)

Plaintiff Music alleges that she was visited or

threatened with a visit by child protective services in

North Carolina and Arizona, (see id. at ¶¶ 42(j–k)),

but again there are no facts suggesting that any

federal law or federal entity, much less the

President, was in any way involved with those

incidents. Plaintiffs likewise repeatedly state that

many of the perceived threats and alleged

discrimination to unvaccinated populations stem

from local governments. (See id. at ¶¶ 52(a), 74, 143,

147, 155.)

In sum, there are no allegations in the first

amended complaint to support even an inference that

the injuries plaintiffs complain of are traceable to

any act or omission of the President but rather result

from the conduct of independent third parties not

before the court.1

1 Plaintiffs claim that “only the President of the United States

of America and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces has

the authority to protect Petitioners from the myriad and

evershifting initiatives to vaccinate every individual in America

as much as possible, which have stoked hatred and vilification

of unvaccinated Americans.” (See First. Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 60–

61.) They also contend that it is the President’s duty to

acknowledge that America has been segregated and to take

some appropriate action to either desegregate or justify the

continued infringement upon Petitioners’ 5th Amendment and

Plaintiffs likewise fail to sufficiently allege that

their claimed injuries will be redressed by a

favorable decision in this action. “To establish

redressability, the plaintiffs must show that the

relief they seek is both (1) substantially likely to

redress their injuries; and (2) within the district

court’s power to award.” Juliana v. United States,

947 F.3d 1159, 1170 (9th Cir. 2020). Here, the court

cannot

envision

how

anything

could

constitutionally order the President to do in this

action would remediate any of plaintiffs’ alleged

injuries.

The relief plaintiffs seek in this action is to have

the court order the President to take unspecified

actions to prevent purported discrimination against

vaccine objectors, perform a national survey of

unvaccinated Americans, and then establish a

national informed consent system whereby “vaccines

shall not be administered unless the patient has

reviewed the actual numerical increased risks of

disease, disability, and death associated with

exposure to vaccines” in the short and long term. (See

id. at ¶ 172.) It requires a stretch of the imagination

other rights. (See id. at ¶ 107.) Plaintiffs further contend that

the “President, by omission of oversight, has not prevented the

vilification, infliction of threats, and coercion of mandatory

vaccination upon [plaintiffs] which has placed [them] in a

position of actual, particularized danger, threatening national

security.” (See id. at ¶¶ 120–21.) They also state that the

President “has actively supported subordinate executive

agencies and myriad others contributing to the ‘predicament’

(by which they mean chronic illnesses allegedly caused by

vaccines) in spite of their known and obvious dangers.” (Id.)

Such generalized and politically

charged assertions

demonstrate a lack of appreciation of the respective roles of the

President and the courts under our Constitutional system, and

this court need not dignify them with any further discussion or

response.

to see how such an order would compensate plaintiffs

for their past injuries or prevent any future injuries

resulting from their refusal to be vaccinated or their

being compelled to be vaccinated. Even if the court

granted the declaratory or injunctive relief sought by

plaintiffs, it would not invalidate the provisions of

California law — or similar provisions in other states’

laws — which allegedly require students to be

vaccinated in order to attend school. (See First Am.

Compl. At ¶¶ 40(h), 41(h).)

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs have failed

to sufficiently allege standing to pursue their claims

against the President in this action. “Although there

is a general rule that parties are allowed to amend

their pleadings, it does not extend to cases in which

any amendment would be an exercise in futility, or

where the amended complaint would also be subject

to dismissal.” See Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc.,

143 F.3d 1293, 1298 (9th Cir. 1998)(internal citations

omitted). Here, in order to overcome the lack of

standing, plaintiffs would have to seek entirely

different relief against an entirely different

defendant or defendants. That, in essence, would

have to be an entirely different action. The court will

accordingly not grant plaintiffs leave to further

amend their complaint in this case.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the United

States’ motion to dismiss, (Docket No. 28), be, and

the same hereby is, GRANTED and the case is

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Because the court

lacks jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs’ claims, the court

DENIES plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice

(Docket No.4) and Motion for Preliminary Injunction

(Docket No. 16).2

The court notes plaintiffs’ objection to “this Court’s rush

briefing schedule that afforded petitioners’ five calendar days to

The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter

judgment accordingly.

Dated: February 22, 2021

/s/ William B. Shubb

WILLIAM B. SHUBB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

file an opposition brief to respondent’s motion to dismiss.” (See

Opp’n to Mot. To Dismiss at 18) (Docket No. 31).) However, at

the status conference held on February 1, 2021, the court

informed all parties that it would be helpful to hear defendant’s

motion to dismiss at the same time as plaintiffs’ motion for

preliminary injunction and request for judicial notice. (See

Docket No. 27.) The reason that an accelerated briefing

schedule was necessary was because plaintiffs refused to

stipulate to a one month continuance and insisted that the

court keep the scheduled hearing date of February 22, 2021 for

plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction. The court

further notes that at the February status conference, all parties

agreed to an accelerated briefing schedule.

APPENDIX C

Gregory J. Glaser (SBN 226706)

4399 Buckboard Drive, Box 423

Copperopolis, CA 95228

Ph. (925) 642-6651

Fx. (209) 729-4557

greg@gregglaser.com

Ray L. Flores II (SBN 233643)

11622 El Camino Real Suite 100

San Diego, CA 92130

Ph. (858) 367-0397

Fx. (888) 336-4037

rayfloreslaw@gmail.com

Attorneys for Petitioners

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT OF CALIFORNIA

EASTERN DISTRICT – SACRAMENTO

Joy Garner, individually and on behalf of The

Control Group; Joy Elisse Garner, individually

and as parent of J.S. and F.G.; Evan Glasco,

individually and as parent of F.G.; Traci Music,

individually and as parent of K.M. and J.S.,

Michael Harris, individually and as parent of S.H.,

Nicole Harris, individually and as parent of S.H.,

Petitioners,

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA in his official capacity,

Respondent.

Case No.: 2:20-CV-02470-WBS-JDP

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED PETITION FOR

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

VERIFIED PETITION FOR DECLARATORY

AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

INTRODUCTION: Outline of the

Problem & the Factual Allegations

1. As a matter of national security, this

Constitutional case is respectfully brought by

scientifically-focused patriotic Americans, including

United States military family members.

2. The American population is currently in the

process of being decimated by chronic illness, due to

injured and dysfunctional immune systems. See

Petitioners’ Request for Judicial Notice Appendices

One and Two, such as:

Most American Adults Are

Wounded and Dying

A. According to the Centers of Disease Control

and Prevention (CDC): “Six in 10 adults in

the US have a chronic disease. Four in 10

have two or more.” Citation: National Center

for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health

Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, Chronic Diseases in America.

https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/

infographic/chronic-diseases.htm.

B. According to the American Heart Association,

48% of American adults suffer heart disease.

Citation: AHA News (2019). Cardiovascular

diseases affect nearly half of American adults,

statistics show.

https://www.heart.org/en/news/2019/01/31/car

diovascular-diseases-affect-nearly-half-ofamerican-adults-statistics-show.

i. Note that heart disease is related to a

dysfunctional/injured

immune

system:

“Atherosclerosis (AT) was once considered

to be a degenerative disease that was an

inevitable consequence of aging. However,

researchers in the last three decades have

shown that AT is not degenerative or

inevitable. It is an autoimmune-inflammatory disease associated with infectious and

inflammatory factors, characterized by lipoproteins metabolism alteration that leads

to immune system activation with the

consequent proliferation of smooth-muscle

cells, narrowing arteries and atheroma

formation.” (Emphasis added.) See AmayaAmaya J, Sarmiento-Monroy JC, RojasVillarraga A. Cardiovascular involvement

in autoimmune diseases. In: Anaya JM,

Shoenfeld Y, Rojas-Villarraga A, et al.,

editors. Autoimmunity: From Bench to

Bedside [Internet]. Bogota (Colombia): El

Rosario University Press; 2013 Jul 18.

Chapter 38. Available from:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45

9468/

C. According to the CDC, “34.2 million people

have diabetes. That’s about 1 in every 10

people. 1 in 5 don’t know they have diabetes.

88 million adults – more than 1 in 3 – have

prediabetes. More than 8 in 10 adults don’t

know they have prediabetes.” Citation: CDC

(2020). A Snapshot: Diabetes In The United

States.

https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/library/socialme

dia/infographics/diabetes.html.

Approximately One Half of America’s

Children Are Wounded and Dying

D. A 2011 Health Affairs assessment estimated

that 43 percent (32 million) of American

children currently suffer from at least one of

twenty chronic health conditions, which

increases to more than half (54.1 percent)

when overweight, obesity or being at risk for

developmental delays are included. Nearly

one-fifth (14.2 million) of children have

conditions resulting in a special health care

need, and these numbers has increased/

worsened steadily since 2011.

Citation:

Bethell et al. (2011). A national and state

profile of leading health problems and health

care quality for US children: key insurance

disparities and across-state variations.

Academic Pediatrics 11(3 Suppl):S22-S33.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2010.08.011.

i. Vaccines are also known to alter the

metabolic system that regulates diet and

therefore even common conditions like

obesity are immune-mediated. See e.g.,

Perez de Heredia, F (2012).

Obesity,

inflammation and the immune system.

Proc Nutr Soc. 2012 May;71(2):332-8.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22429824/

E. A 2018 Pediatrics study reported that onefifth of American children and adolescents

regularly use prescription medication and

12% of boys aged six to 12 years are

prescribed more than one drug. Citation:

Dima et al. (2018). Prescription Medication

Use Among Children and Adolescents in the

United States. Pediatrics 142(3):e20181042.

https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-1042.

America Is Being Decimated

F. Autoimmune diseases, of which there are at

least 80 distinct conditions, occur as a result

of the immune system attacking the body’s

own tissues and organs. Some of the more

common autoimmune conditions include type

1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic

lupus erythematosus and inflammatory bowel

disease. Taken together, these conditions,

once so rare they were virtually unheard of,

have increased from year to year for mostly

unknown reasons and are now, “as a group

afflict 5%–9% of the U.S. population,”

according to a report in International Journal

of Molecular Sciences. Citation: Parks et al.

(2014). Expert panel workshop consensus

statement on the role of the environment in

the development of autoimmune disease.

International Journal of Molecular Sciences

15(8):14269-14297.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms150814269

G. According to the CDC, chronic disease and

mental illness account for most American

deaths, consume 90% of the Nation’s $3.5

trillion in annual health care expenditures

and are projected to account for more than

$42 trillion in spending by 2030. Citations:

National Center for Chronic Disease

Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention, Health

and Economic Costs of Chronic Diseases.

https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/about/cost

s/index.htm#ref1; Allegrante et al. (2019).

Interventions to Support Behavioral Self-

Management of Chronic Diseases. Annual

Review of Public Health 40:127-146. https://

doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218044008

H. The majority of Americans aged 17 to 24 are

longer

fit

for

military

service.

“Approximately 71% of the 34 million 17-to24-year-olds in the U.S. would not qualify for

military service because of reasons related to

health, physical appearance and educational

background, according to the Pentagon.”

Feeny, N. (2014). Pentagon: 7 in 10 Youths

Would Fail to Qualify for Military

Service. Time Magazine. https://time.com/

2938158/youth-fail-to-qualify-militaryservice/

3. The vast majority of health problems

suffered by Americans today are the consequence of,

and/or are directly related to, a dysfunctional

immune system, i.e., those that are now formallyclassified as autoimmune disorders, and are known

to be immune-mediated, including heart disease,

diabetes, thyroid disorders, asthma, arthritis, cancer,

kidney failures, etc. See Petitioners’ Request for

Judicial Notice Appendix One, which is organized to

feature the hard evidence that America’s pandemic is

one of immune-mediated disorders (dysfunctional

and injured immune systems).

4. Approximately 99.74% or more of the

American population has been exposed to immunesystem-altering vaccination.1 The mechanisms of

1See Petitioner Joy Garner’s Declaration (“Garner Declaration”)

In Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, especially

Exhibit C, “Statistical Evaluation of Health Outcomes in the

Unvaccinated” Full Report, Chapter 4, which contains

calculations calibrated from the CDC’s most recent studies.

immune system altering vaccine adjuvants remain

poorly understood, i.e., “elusive”.2 See Petitioners’

Request for Judicial Notice Appendix Two.

5. The health of this over 99% vaccine-exposed

population, the vaccinated ‘herd’, is well-documented

in our judicially noticeable National disease

statistics, which represent the health of this

population, at any level of vaccine exposure. See

Petitioners’ Request for Judicial Notice Appendix

One.

6. Our Nation has never faced an infectious

disease threat anywhere near as devastating or

threatening as our Nation’s current pandemic of

immune-mediated illnesses, disabilities, and related

deaths. See Petitioners’ Request for Judicial Notice,

Appendix Two, especially section 43 entitled “20th

Century Disease Mortality Reductions Caused By

Improved Living Conditions Prior to Vaccines”.

7. The most obvious culprit in our Nation’s

current non-infectious pandemic of immunemediated chronic diseases, disabilities, and related

deaths, is exposure to immune-system altering

vaccines. See Petitioners’ Request for Judicial Notice,

Appendices One and Two, and the Supporting

Declarations of Petitioners’ Experts.

8. No branch of government, nor any government agency, has examined this particular problem,

and if anything, all branches of government go to

great pains to conceal both the severity of the prob2“However,

how these mineral agents influence the immune

response to vaccination remains elusive. Many hypotheses exist

as to the mode of action of these adjuvants, such as depot

formation, antigen (Ag) targeting, and the induction of

inflammation.” Ghimire, TR (2015). The mechanisms of action

of vaccines containing aluminum adjuvants: an in vitro vs in

vivo paradigm. Springerplus. 2015; 4: 181. https://www.ncbi.

nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4406982/

lem and its most obvious primary cause. See Petitioners’ Request for Judicial Notice, Appendix Two.

9. The government’s Vaccine Adverse Event

Reporting System (“VAERS”) numbers have been

cited falsely as “proof” that vaccines are relatively

safe. The VAERS numbers are over 99% incorrect,

and the long-term risks of vaccination are not

tracked at all.3 Immune disorders are progressive,

taking weeks, months, or even years, before the

victim might become aware their life will never be

the same, that what is left of it will be spent in

agony, and/or that it will likely end prematurely.

10. In setting vaccine-related public health

policies, the over 99% incorrect VAERS numbers are

relied upon as ‘evidence’ that vaccine risks are low,

or ‘rare’, which to this day, remains the primary

support for the false slogan vaccines are “worth the

risks”. The only scientifically relevant evidence that

could support any conclusions about the numerical

frequency of health injuries suffered as a result of

vaccination, is a statistical comparison of health

See Petitioners’ Request for Judicial Notice, Appendix Two,

Exhibit 293, “Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are

common, but underreported….fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse

events are reported…. New surveillance methods for drug and

vaccine adverse effects are needed.” Lazarus, R., et al. (2007).

Grant Final Report: Electronic Support for Public Health–

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS). The

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services. https://healthit.

ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf

NOTE: This study, exposing the 99% failure rate of the VAERS,

was intentionally concealed from public view under the Obama

administration, and nothing changed over at the FDA or the

VAERS under Obama’s administration as a result of these

findings.

outcomes between those who are exposed to vaccines,

against the true controls. This is the most fundamental requirement of the scientific method in this

instance, and it is the one method most vehemently

rejected in “vaccine safety science” today. See

Petitioners’ Request for Judicial Notice, Appendix

Two.

11. In addition to VAERS, to dishonestly

support their false claims of “safety”, public health

authorities cite vaguely to “safety studies” and preand post-marketing clinical trials of vaccines, but

such short-term “safety studies” and pre- and postmarketing clinical trials fail in every single instance

to compare a statistically significant group of

vaccinated individuals to completely unvaccinated

individuals. For example, the American Academy of

Pediatrics (AAP) and related groups attempted to

misinform the President of the United States of

America regarding vaccine risk in 2017. See, AAP

News (2017). Vaccines save lives’: 350 groups sign letter

to President Trump. https://www.aappublications.org

/news/2017/02/08/VaccineLetter020817. In response

to such AAP disinformation, a thorough independent

review was published by Dr. James Lyons-Weiler

exposing the inadequacy of every single citation in

the AAP’s 28-page letter to Respondent. See, LyonsWeiler, J. (2018). Systematic Review of Historical

Epidemiologic Studies Influencing Public Health

Policies on Vaccination. IPAK. http://ipaknowledge.

org/resources/LYONSWEILERSYSTREVIEW.pdf;

See also, Lyons-Weiler, J. (2018). Supplementary

Material. IPAK. http://ipaknowledge.org/resources

/SUPPLEMENT%20Power%20Calculations.pdf.

Moreover, corroborating evidence for Petitioners’

Control Group Survey data (described herein) can be

found in the recently published ‘vaccinated versus

unvaccinated’ study by James Lyons-Weiler, PhD

C10

and Paul Thomas, MD: Lyons-Weiler, J. and

Thomas, P. (2020) Relative Incidence of Office Visits

and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the

Axis of Vaccination. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public

Health 2020, 17(22), 8674; https://doi.org/10.3390/

ijerph17228674.

12. The Petitioners’ evidence demonstrates that

severe and debilitating vaccine health injuries are

very common. And they far outweigh even the most

outlandishly exaggerated hypothetical projections of

harm the ‘experts’ have claimed Americans would

suffer without vaccines.4 The American population of

entirely unexposed true scientific ‘controls’, i.e., the

unvaccinated population (calculated at approximately 830,000 remaining in the USA at this time)

are largely unaffected by most of the chronic health

conditions suffered by Americans today. Consequently, the unvaccinated population has exponentially higher overall chances of survival than

those who’ve been exposed to vaccination, regardless

of the varying levels of exposure/s in the over 99%

vaccine-exposed population. See: Garner Declaration,

See Petitioners’ Request for Judicial Notice, Appendix Two.

Indeed, evidence shows that during the first wave of polio in the

USA in 1916 (long before a polio vaccine was available) there

was only a 0.0386% chance of contracting polio in the USA, and

only a 0.0086% risk of death from polio in the USA. In the next

polio wave of 1952, three years before a vaccine was generally

available in the USA, there was only a 0.035% risk of

contracting polio in the USA, and only a 0.0019% risk of dying

from it in the USA. The polio case rate had already begun to

plummet dramatically before the vaccines came into use. See

Tucker, J (2020). No Lockdowns: The Terrifying Polio Pandemic

of 1949-52. American Institute for Economic Research.

https://www.aier.org/article/no-lockdowns-the-terrifying-poliopandemic-of-1949-52/

C11

Exhibit A, Comparison Graphs, as well as Exhs. B &

C, the supporting reports.

13. The Control Group dataset provides

profound proof that vaccine exposure is in fact the

primary cause of this Nation’s current public health

crisis.5 Petitioners’ evidence exponentially exceeds

the standards of proof relied upon by the FDA in

drug approvals. This evidence also far exceeds any

known statistical standard of proof relied upon in

any scientific field in the world today, even far

surpassing those relied upon by CERN, the world’s

largest physics lab, which uses the world’s highest

statistical standards for proving the existence of

hypothetical particles. For example, Petitioners’

evidence demonstrates the p-value (probability or

odds) that the excess health conditions seen in the

vaccinated population under the age of 18

are not due to vaccine exposure is 1 in 84,721,527,

559,728,800,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

And certainly the Petitioners’ statistical evidence,

provided herein, far exceeds the standards relied

upon to obtain murder convictions in forensic

criminal prosecutions within our Federal courts.6 In

the instance of the Control Group dataset, the

statistical evidence relies upon already observed

health outcomes, i.e., historical data, which is of far

superior evidentiary value than any hypothetical

5 See Garner Declaration, Exhibit B, Summary Report, page 8,

items numbered 6 thru 9.

6 See: Executive Office of The President’s Council of Advisors on

Science and Technology (2016). REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT

Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific

Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. https://obamawhite

house.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pca

st_forensic_science_report_final.pdf

C12

projection

models,

let

alone

numerically

unsubstantiated slogans.

14. It is understood that chronic health

conditions, i.e., ‘comorbidities’ particularly multiple

conditions, reduce survival rates, and also increase

vulnerability to, and risk of death from, infectious

diseases.7

15. The current state of vaccine-related public

health policy is not based in science. Science requires

the basic elements, such as true controls, and actual

numbers. Scientifically valid numbers cannot be

provided from an accounting system that is incorrect

over 99% of the time. Flipping a coin would produce a

more reliable accounting of vaccine risks than the

VAERS. The so-called “vaccine science” the public is

instructed to blindly trust, is now largely made up of

a plethora of outrageously false and subjective

slogans which project the false impression vaccines

are “safe”, and this false claim is premised solely

upon the equally false claim the frequency of vaccine

injuries are low, resulting in the “relatively safe” or

“worth the risks” assumptions about vaccination.

However, such purportedly ‘expert’ slogan-opinions

do not qualify as science. And they are of precisely

zero scientific value in determining a risk/benefit

ratio, which requires a set of numbers for an

equation. This is something no agency of government

7 See CDC (2020). Weekly Updates by Select Demographic and

Geographic Characteristics.

NCHS.

https://www.cdc.gov/

nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Comorbidities (94% of

claimed ‘covid-19’ deaths were in those with an average of 2.6

comorbidities each, some of which were actually fresh bullet

wounds. And yet, the CDC has refused to properly adjust their

numbers to reflect the truth here. The fact the CDC owns

vaccine patents and profits from their sales is directly related to

their failure to accurately report the true causes of death). See

also Petitioners’ Request for Judicial Notice, Appendix Two.

C13

has ever provided to the public with regard to the

risks of vaccination. Without knowing the price to be

paid, there is no method by which to determine if

vaccination is “worth it”, either for any one

individual, or for the collective “herd”, i.e., public

health.8 Vaccines are, and always have been,

8 See e.g., Wendy E. Parmet, Public Health and Constitutional

Law: Recognizing the Relationship, 10 J. Health Care L. & Pol’y

13 (2007). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.Umaryland.

edu/jhclp/vol10/iss1/3 (“Epidemiology, however, also plays an

important role in constitutional law, especially in many

doctrines and cases, some of which were discussed above, in

which the state’s purported attempt to protect public health is

relevant to the determination of the constitutionality of state

action. Indeed, in such cases epidemiology and its sister

sciences, such as biostatistics, are absolutely critical to understanding both what courts are doing and the constitutionality of

particular state actions. ... Consider, for example, the Court’s

analysis of Massachusetts’s attempt to regulate cigar and

smokeless tobacco advertising in Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly.

Under the prevailing First Amendment commercial speech

doctrine, the constitutionality of the state’s regulations

depended upon the state being able to show, first, that it was

advancing a substantial state interest, second, that the

regulations directly advanced such an interest, and third, that

the regulations were no more extensive or burdensome than

was necessary. As previously discussed, the Court has consistently accepted that public health is a valid and even important

state function. But how could the Court know that the

regulation of tobacco marketing to minors was in fact related to

protecting public health? Moreover, how could the Court know

whether the regulations protected public health, either directly

or at all, and in a manner no more extensive than is necessary

to achieve the state goal? To answer each of these questions,

the Court had to review and assess epidemiological

evidence.” [emphasis added] No governmental agency has ever

provided epidemiological evidence to support vaccine safety

claims. The only evidence relevant to answering this particular

question is a numerical accounting of the health outcomes

between exposed and unexposed. Nothing short of this can

answer the question: Are vaccines producing more good than

C14

experimental. See Petitioners’ Request for Judicial

Notice, Appendix Two.

16. Unlike the evidence presented herein, the

government has never counted the victims of

vaccination, and therefore has nothing with which to

support any claim vaccines are doing less harm than

good. Therefore, no branch of government can show a

compelling or competing interest to that of the

Petitioners here. The decimation of the American

population is not a public good. Pharma profits must

now take a back seat to the public good, as the

survival of our Nation now hangs in the balance.

Actual science must now, finally, take center stage

and become the basis upon which public health policy

depends. Public health policy can no longer be based

upon unsubstantiated slogans, no matter how many

PhDs are attached to them. Strict scrutiny must

apply to any government claims of public good

through vaccination. For if it is not applied, our

Nation has no chance of survival based on current

health trajectories.

17. Petitioners request this Court immediately

free the American people from any form of

discrimination for refusing to participate in this

mass, ongoing, human medical experiment. This is

particularly true when the potential value of this

experiment to the ‘advancement of medical

knowledge’ is presently zero, given the fact the

government has been wearing a blindfold to the

harm to public health? A million experts claiming safety

without numbers cannot stand before one expert with numbers.

History has shown us the power of deference to authority via

bloodletting as the misguided standard of care, tobacco science

falsely claiming to be good for health, Vioxx science as bought

and paid for by Pharma, and many recalled vaccines. Deference

to authority without num-bers is unscientific. Control group

science is scientific.

C15

number of its wounded and fallen, refusing to count

even 1% of the immediately visible wounded and

fallen. We would never allow our wounded and fallen

on the battlefield such dishonor, but in the war on

infectious disease the American Citizen is not

counted for purple hearts in the name of the

President. No branch of the government has ever

once calculated the actual price being paid for this

claimed vaccine ‘protection’. Apparently, when the

cost is measured in human suffering and deaths, the

government finds there is no reason to ever tally it

up. Vaccines, the public is told, are simply “worth it”.

And this mere slogan is the supposed “science” which

the public is asked to forever trust without question.

18. Confirmed by Petitioners’ Requests for

Judicial Notice, there exists today a national

pandemic of immune-related chronic diseases,

disabilities, and disorders in the United States of

America (“National Health Pandemic”). The relief

requested herein is calculated to have an immediate

and direct impact on national security. Protecting the

United States of America is the President’s duty, and

only he (or the Court acting in respect of him) as

President and Commander in Chief of the Armed

Forces is able to provide the relief requested herein

which is specific to national security.

19. The conflicting and ever-shifting policies

among myriad lower government bodies have

frustrated to futility scientific attempts to confirm

and remedy the causes of the National Health

Pandemic. Further confirmation of the causes of the

National Health Pandemic requires that the

President take immediate action to protect and

survey ‘control groups’ necessary to the scientific

method as a matter of national security. Doing so

while facing a strong headwind of unscientific

assumptions about control groups that vary in

C16

different jurisdictions, within a quagmire of everchanging legal coercion techniques based on those

assumptions,

the

challenge

(hereinafter

“Predicament”).

20. The President of the United States of

America is not the sole cause of the Predicament, but

as President and Commander in Chief of the Armed

Forces he (or the Court acting in respect of him) is

the only one able to provide the national security

remedy to solve it.

21. Like so many controversies in this country,

this Predicament began with good intentions of

protecting our country’s health. Now, in light of

America’s National Health Pandemic, the President

must take action in order to fulfill his duty to

preserve, protect, and defend, the Constitution for

the United States of America. An Executive Order,

Presidential Proclamation, Presidential Directive,

Presidential Determination, Presidential Memorandum or other action of his reasonable choosing

(hereinafter “Order”) can if properly written fulfill

the President’s duty to safeguard the health, safety

and security of our nation.

II. NATIONAL SECURITY EMERGENCY:

Four Judicially Noticeable Facts Prove The

Unavoidably Unsafe Vaccine Predicament

for Control Groups and the Nation

22. This verified petition for declaratory and

injunctive relief is justified by the impending

involuntary dissolution of the United States due to

catastrophic national rates of immune-related

chronic diseases, disabilities, and disorders. Without

immediate alteration of America’s self-evident

trajectory, our National structure will ultimately

collapse under the weight of disabilities, loss of

C17

workforce, healthcare costs, plummeting fertility,

and the like. Faced with this National Health

Pandemic never before seen in the Nation’s history,

Petitioners respectfully petition the Court for an

exercise of the Court’s fundamental power under

Article III of the Constitution for the United States of

America, to act as an intermediary between the

President of the United States of America and the

people of the United States of America as follows:

A. Declaring a national health emergency

B. Authorizing a national health survey of a

control group of unvaccinated individuals

C. Upholding Constitutional protections for

individuals exercising the right of informed

consent in medical decision making

23. Vaccines are unavoidably unsafe. See, Code

of Federal Regulations, Restatement of Torts,

(Second) 402A (k) (“Unavoidably Unsafe”). The

United States Supreme Court has opined on this

classification in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S.

223, 234, 251 (2011). An unavoidably unsafe product

is defined by a hodge-podge of criteria and a few

examples, such as the Pasteur rabies vaccine and

experimental pharmaceuticals. ... the injury or death

resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even

though the vaccine was properly prepared and was

accompanied by proper directions and warnings”).

The correct synonym for “unsafe” is dangerous. But

the law itself is unable to answer the question: ‘How

dangerous numerically?’ In this case, Petitioners

respectfully request actual verified numbers from

Respondent.

24. Four judicially noticeable facts define this

case, which are the subject of Petitioners’ Requests

for Judicial Notice relying exclusively on published

scientific consensus documents comprised of top

medical journals and dictionaries, the official

C18

authoritative records of American public health

agencies, and the public records (e.g., census data,

national health data) relied upon by those public

health agencies in setting public health policy:

A. National Health Pandemic: The United

States of America is suffering a pandemic of

chronic diseases, disabilities, and disorders

that are the result of injured and dysfunctional immune systems. Petitioners hereby

refer to their Request for Judicial Notice

Appendix One (“PRJN1”).

B. Immunity Altered: Vaccines are designed

to cause, and do cause, permanent alterations to the immune system. Petitioners

hereby refer to their Request for Judicial

Notice Appendices One and Two.

C. Numerically Undefined: The United

States government has never publicly evaluated vaccines numerically for longterm or cumulative health risks, in comparison to a large group of fully unvaccinated

individuals. Petitioners hereby refer to their

Request for Judicial Notice Appendix Two

(“PRJN2”).

D. Ongoing Injuries & Endangered Population. Approximately 99% or more of the

American population has received one or

more vaccinations. Less than 1% of

Americans remain entirely unexposed.

Petitioners hereby refer to PRJN2.

25. These four judicially noticeable facts lead

objective scientists and physicians to conclude that

further scientific survey is necessary to further

confirm the extent to which vaccines, which are

designed to alter the immune system, are responsible

for our Nation’s current pandemic of immune system

related illnesses.

C19

26. For the entire duration of American history,

no scientist or institution had ever before published

large-scale mathematical data comparing the overall

health of the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated. See PRJN2. But Petitioners’ nationwide (48

states) dataset and study prepared for this litigation

(The Control Group) reliably provides the requisite

numerical evidence, and is fully corroborated by

small to medium scale studies which consistently

reveal the unvaccinated are exponentially healthier

than the vaccinated. See Expert Declarations In

Support of Petitioners’ Motion for Preliminary

Injunction.

27. The scientific method is necessary to further

evaluate the impact vaccines are having on the

overall health of Americans. For the entire duration

of American history, no institution has ever

published conclusive mathematical data proving the

long-term cumulative health effects of vaccines

recommend by the United States government. See

PRJN2. Consequently, it is mathematically impossible for any public health official in America to

specify reliable risk/benefit ratios in deciding

whether or not this class of pharmaceutical product

is, in the aggregate, helping or damaging public

health. In other words, how can vaccine mandates be

narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling

government interest if the public health officials

cannot even demonstrate whether their mandated

cure is worse than the disease?

28. The scientific method requires true controls

in product safety inquiry. The scientific method is

one wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and

purposely tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and

improves itself. See PRJN2.

29. With methodology independently validated

by a survey expert, Petitioners’ Nationwide

C20

2019/2020 consumer product pilot survey produced

an exceptional sample-rate across 95% of American

states for this small population of interest, i.e.,

entirely unvaccinated, recording the medical

diagnoses of 1,482 unvaccinated Americans, which

through accepted standard statistical models, is

evidenced as an extremely accurate representation of

the health of all entirely unvaccinated Americans

living in the USA during the survey period. The

results tabulated are far more than statistically

reliable and significant and they evidence that the

fully unvaccinated (as a population cohort in

America) are exponentially healthier than national

published health statistics for the 99.74% vaccineexposed American population. Therefore Petitioners

respectfully submit that it is scientifically justified to

verify, qualify, or disprove Petitioners’ extraordinary

initial pilot survey results by conducting an even

larger scale definitive national survey.

30. In further support of Petitioners’ prima facie

showing that vaccination is far more than just a

likely suspect in the National Health Pandemic,

Petitioners will refer to their Requests for Judicial

Notice of authoritative scientific study evidence of

unvaccinated populations consistent with Petitioners’

initial pilot survey results, such as the Mogensen

study by Dr. Peter Aaby that emphasizes the need

for further and authoritative survey and study:

This Mogensen Study in 2017 followed over

1,000 children, comparing an unvaccinated

control group to a second group that received

polio and DTP vaccines. With a 95% confidence interval, the study results showed

mortality was five times higher for vaccinated

children than for unvaccinated children. See

PRJN1. Dr. Peter Aaby et al., ”All currently

C21

available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine

may kill more children from other causes

than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or

pertussis.” Mogensen, S.W., et al., The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and

Oral Polio Vaccine Among Young Infants in

an Urban African Community: A Natural

Experiment, EBioMedicine (2017), http://dx.

doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.01.041

31. As control group members, Petitioners have

reviewed scientific papers such as the Mogensen

study, which has contributed in various measures to

their known and admitted potential ‘bias’ that

naturally acquired immunity to infectious disease is

biologically superior to vaccine-induced antibody

production whereby antibodies provide pharmacological evidence of immunity. Therefore to reduce

the impact of such potential bias in this case,

Petitioners have structured this Petition and request

for relief around the four judicially noticeable facts

above in para. 24, which are based entirely upon

published scientific consensus documents that are

100% independent of Petitioners’ potential bias, as

the documents were prepared wholly independently

of Petitioners and are sources relied upon and cited

by federal public health authorities, including the

United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

Additionally, the Petitioners’ evidence showing the

health of the entirely unvaccinated controls and the

like, are matters of fact to be determined by a jury.

III.

Imminent National Security Threat:

Unavoidably Unsafe Vaccination With

Liability Upon The Federal Government

Creates A National Security Issue of

Bankruptcy

C22

32. Without a suspension of the National

Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA),

which shifted civil liability for injuries caused by

vaccines from pharmaceutical companies to the

Federal government who recommends vaccines, the

Federal government is at serious risk of bankruptcy.

See e.g., 42 USCS § 300aa-22 (“No vaccine

manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for

damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or

death associated with the administration of a vaccine

after the effective date of this part [effective Oct. 1,

1988] if the injury or death resulted from side effects

that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was

properly prepared and was accompanied by proper

directions and warnings.”); 42 USCS § 300aa et seq.,

codifying the scheme for the Federal government to

be responsible for paying compensation to vaccine

injury victims. States also have various laws

providing legal immunity to pharmaceutical

companies causing vaccine injury, but States have

retained their sovereign immunity and are therefore

not carrying the same risk as the Federal

government. In the words of the late Justice Antonin

Scalia in the opinion of Bruesewitz v. Wyeth:

“Design defects, in contrast, do not merit a

single mention in the NCVIA or the FDA’s

regulations. Indeed, the FDA has never even

spelled out in regulations the criteria it uses

to decide whether a vaccine is safe and

effective for its intended use. And the

decision is surely not an easy one. Drug

manufacturers often could trade a little less

efficacy for a little more safety, but the safest

design is not always the best one. Striking

the right balance between safety and efficacy

C23

is especially difficult with respect to vaccines, which affect public as well as individual health. Yet the Act, which in every

other respect micromanages manufacturers,

is silent on how to evaluate competing

designs. Are manufacturers liable only for

failing to employ an alternative design that

the FDA has approved for distribution (an

approval it takes years to obtain)? Or does it

suffice that a vaccine design has been approved in other countries? Or could there be

liability for failure to use a design that exists

only in a lab? Neither the Act nor the FDA

regulations provide an answer, leaving the

universe of alternative designs to be limited

only by an expert’s imagination.”

Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223, 23738 (2011)

33. Given the extensive harm which the

Petitioners’ evidence shows is caused by mass

vaccination programs in the USA, and if the

Petitioners’ requested nationwide survey only further

confirms this evidence, the potential liability to the

federal government under the NCVIA may rise into

tens of trillions of dollars, further emphasizing the

national security nature of the Predicament and this

case. It is a political question and therefore not the

subject of this action whether a national security

solution may include the restoration of sovereign

immunity to protect the continuity of the United

States government. It is also a political question and

therefore not the subject of this action whether the

President may exercise his reasonable discretion

under Article 2, Section 3 to recommend appropriate

measures to Congress in relation to the NCVIA, such

as an ex post facto law withdrawing civil liability

C24

immunity for vaccine manufacturers in order to

remove obstacles to compensation for vaccine injury

victims, including statutory limitations tolling for

victims who have not yet reached the age of 18 years.

This portion of the predicament can be described as a

storm about to hit our shores. If the American people

are freed to assert their rights as against the actual

culprit, this storm can be guided to the proper

shores.

34. The suspension of laws which are currently

protecting those who conduct medical experimentation without informed consent are obviously within

the powers of the executive branch during a National

Emergency. It is within the President’s reasonable

discretion to suspend the enforcement of laws which

imminently threaten to decimate the American

population, and which imminently threaten to take

the entire Nation down as a consequence.

35. Vaccine supply chains are fundamentally

global in character, and are especially dependent

upon Communist China, also presenting complex

webs of national security concerns. Petitioners refer

to their Request for Judicial Notice Appendix Three

(“PRJN3”).

IV. PARTIES

Petitioners

36. Petitioner Joy Garner (“Joy Garner”) is a

scientifically-minded patriotic American from a

United States of America military family. She is a

technology inventor and patent-holder. Joy Garner is

domiciled in Roseville, California, which is located in

Placer County, CA.

37. Joy Garner founded and operates The

Control Group (“TCG”), a not-for-profit organization

that surveys unvaccinated individuals for the

C25

purpose of this litigation to numerically quantify

their already professionally-diagnosed medical and

other conditions. On American Independence Day,

July 4, 2020, TCG completed its tabulation of the

results to date from its nationwide pilot survey of

1,482 completely unvaccinated Americans (“TCG

American Survey”) across 48 American states, of all

ages, which survey results were independently

validated by a survey expert. Due to the small size of

the population of interest, the sample rate for this

study already far exceeds those of typical nationwide

health surveys conducted, and relied upon, by our

government health agencies.

38. This dataset produced a 99% confidence in

an interval with less than 0.04% variance for

accuracy. The cohort comparisons between the health

outcomes in the 99% vaccine-exposed American

population and these unvaccinated controls exposed

that there is higher than a 1 in 84 Sexvigintillion (82

decimals) odds against the innocence of vaccines as

the cause for the excess health injuries observed in

the vaccine-exposed population. Further, the survey

expert compared TCG American Survey results to

the national health data that is the subject of

Petitioners’ Requests for Judicial Notice. The survey

expert found vaccine exposure to be the most likely

culprit in the National Health Pandemic. The survey

expert has recommended further study in the form a

nationwide health survey of unvaccinated Americans

for further confirmation and to properly inform

public health policy in America, as it relates to

vaccination.

39. Petitioner Joy Garner presents reliable

evidence herein showing that the risks of vaccination

far exceed any claimed benefits as it relates to both

public health concerns, and within the context of

what any individual would consider a reasonable

C26

risk/benefit evaluation. Petitioner Joy Garner pleads

for relief, in that she, her family, and her fellow

Americans should now be freed from all forms of

discrimination within the USA as a consequence of

their choice not to submit to a 60% risk of immunemediated chronic illnesses, and/or debilitating and

deadly conditions into adulthood, due to vaccine

exposure.

40. Petitioner Joy Elisse Garner (“Elisse

Garner”) and Petitioner Evan Glasco (“Evan Glasco”)

are scientifically-minded patriotic Americans from

United States of America military families. Elisse

Garner and Evan Glasco are domiciled in Grass

Valley, California, which is located in Nevada

County. Elisse Garner is the mother of her minor

children J.S. and F.G. (collectively “Elisse’s

children”), who are participants in the TCG

American Survey. Evan Glasco is the father of F.G.

Joy Garner is the grandmother of Elisse’s children.

Joy Garner routinely assists with caring for Elisse’s

children while Elisse Garner and Evan Glasco work

and attend appointments. Joy Garner is also the

backup legal guardian designated for Elisse’s

children if needed.

A. Healthy. J.S. and F.G. are completely and

extraordinarily healthy. Both children are

supported by their primary care physician (a

licensed California medical doctor) who not

only supports the family’s health choices, but

champions those choices for the well-being of

the children. J.S. and F.G. consistently meet

good fitness marks for height, weight, and

strength. Everyone in the Glasco family is

very hygienic.

B. Uncorrupted. J.S. was born in a hospital

and received a Vitamin K shot but no

vaccinations. J.S. had adverse reactions to

C27

the Vitamin K shot, but has since recovered

via natural healing. F.G. is a toddler who

was born via natural birthing methods and

received no medical interventions (i.e., no

Vitamin K shot or vaccinations). Both

children have never had any pharmaceutical

drugs or biologics of any kind whatsoever

(save for J.S.’s one Vitamin K shot referenced

above). Rather, the Glasco family choose

natural remedies rather than pharmaceutical drugs.

All American Athlete. J.S. is an exceptional athlete, especially in dance and

gymnastics where she has won multiple

awards.

Intelligent. J.S. is an accomplished student

and has been selected to help tutor other

students due to her academic excellence.

Note that many of J.S.’s accomplishments

were obtained before California eliminated

non-medical vaccine exemptions. F.G.’s

strong mental acumen is already prominent

even at his young age.

Personality. J.S. is ethical and honest. She

is very confident, sociable, and articulate.

She is clever and has a great sense of humor.

She has a good reputation among parents

and children in the community for these

character qualities.

Community. The Glasco Family lives in a

neighborhood with a community park. J.S.

and F.G. enjoy regularly play with the

neighborhood children.

Christian. The Glasco family is Christian

and Jewish. They pray to God together

regularly. Elisse attended private Baptist

school, and her faith in Jesus Christ is

C28

absolutely central and essential to her

spiritual and moral foundation. Elisse and

Evan are religiously opposed to vaccines

manufactured using aborted fetal cells.

H. Rights. Evan Glasco and Elisse Garner wish

to exercise their panoply of Constitutional

rights including fundamental Freedom of

Religion and Due Process, especially to

parent and raise their own child free from

religious discrimination by the State.

However, California’s Health and Safety

Code, Section 120325, et seq. (a mandatory

vaccination law for schoolchildren) denies

this right by prohibiting J.S. and F.G. from

attending any public or private school in the

State of California unless they first receive a

myriad of pharmaceutical injections that

would (1) eradicate the Glasco Family’s

religious beliefs that, for example, vaccines

should not be manufactured utilizing cell

lines from aborted human babies, and (2)

categorically exclude J.S. and F.G. from

participation in scientific control group

survey/study of unvaccinated children.

Children with religious opposition to

vaccination are segregated in California

schools, because they are required to be

homeschooled. The Glasco family is strong

and determined, but segregation has caused

the Glasco family to experience sorrow that

J.S. has been separated from her friends at

school. J.S. would very much like the opportunity to attend school. The Glasco Family

intends for J.S. and F.G. to continue to

homeschool for the duration of this proceeding, thereby empowering the Executive

to desegregate.

C29

13th Amendment: Elisse Garner and Evan

Glasco are aware that the results of the

Control Group study evidence massively

increased risks for serious and deadly health

conditions associated with vaccination.

Because Elisse personally witnessed the

TCG survey and study process, and also

helped her mother Joy Garner in conducting

the study, she is keenly aware that it does

reflect the genuine truth of the matter, i.e.,

that vaccine exposure dramatically increases

her own family’s risks of health problems

and injuries. Elisse is aware that, into

adulthood, these risks include a 60% risk of

chronic disease, including a 48% chance of

heart disease, a 10% risk of diabetes, and

many others, as well as the risks of severe

physical and mental debilitation, and even

the risk of death shortly after injection. To

the extent that vaccines have not otherwise

been studied for their long-term and

cumulative effects, Elisse Garner and Evan

Glasco fully understand that vaccines are in

fact experimental at this time in the USA.

Because their children are currently healthy

and not in need of any “therapeutic” medical

interventions,

they

know

that

the

“therapeutic privilege” and/or other codified

consent

waivers

applied

medical

experimentation without informed consent

(where vaccine approvals are given in the

USA) cannot lawfully be applied to them, or

their children. This couple specifically

refuses to consent to their children, or

themselves, serving as experimental medical

subjects. Solely because they refuse to

submit themselves or their children to serve

C30

as subjects in medical experiments that carry

obscenely high risks of health injury, they

suffer discrimination, denying their children

access to both public and private education,

as well as the denial of access to certain

professions for themselves, not only within

the state of California, but in many of the

most populated American states they might

wish to move to in the future. Further,

because this particular experiment (coerced

mass vaccination) is conducted without the

government having conducting an accurate

accounting of its victims, i.e., no meaningful

examination of the results, the petitioners

assert there is no advancement of medical

knowledge possible with which to justify its

continuation, let alone any coercive demands

that they or their children participate in it.

41. Petitioner

Michael

Harris

(“Michael

Harris”) and Petitioner Nicole Harris (“Nicole

Harris”)

are

scientifically-minded

patriotic

Americans. Michael Harris is a United States Air

Force veteran pilot with an electrical engineering

degree. Michael Harris and Nicole Harris are the

parents of S.H., a minor child and participant in the

TCG American Survey. The Harris family is

domiciled in Carlsbad, California, which is located in

San Diego County. The Harris family are Christians,

and their son S.H. has the following qualities that

make him a top student and an excellent candidate

to participate in scientific surveys and studies of

unvaccinated individuals:

A. Healthy. S.H. is completely and extraordinarily healthy. He is supported by his

primary care physician (a licensed California

medical doctor) who not only supports the

family’s health choices for S.H., but

C31

champions those choices for his well-being.

S.H. consistently meets good fitness marks

for height, weight, and strength. Everyone in

the Harris family is very hygienic (i.e.,

organic soaps and detergents, special water

filter for washing).

B. Uncorrupted. S.H. was born via natural

birthing methods (water birth) and received

no medical interventions (i.e., no Vitamin K

shot). S.H. has never had any pharmaceutical drugs or biologics of any kind whatsoever. Rather, the types of natural remedies

one would find from time-to-time in the

Harris family home are organic Vitamin C

and elderberry purchased at the local health

food market. S.H. is completely unvaccinated.

C. All American Athlete. S.H. is an

exceptional athlete, especially in baseball

where he has twice earned the award for

Most Valuable Player on his travelling team

where he is a pitcher. S.H. is a team player

as his coaches report that he helps raise the

attitudes of his other teammates to do their

best as well.

D. Intelligent. S.H. is an honors student (e.g.,

S.H. was classified by testers as gifted in 2nd

grade, he passed the 400 club in math in 3rd

grade before any other student, he has

received multiple Dean’s list principal

awards, he routinely receives top scores on

advanced tests; as a fourth grader he is

already reading at approximately the 7th

grade level; he is especially engaged and

vibrant in building and engineering tasks).

Note that many of these accomplishments

C32

were obtained before California eliminated

non-medical vaccine exemptions.

E. Personality. S.H. is friendly, kind,

personable, and honest. He has a good

reputation among parents and children in

the community for these character qualities.

F. Community. The Harris Family lives in a

neighborhood with an elementary and

middle school (~.1 mile away) where there is

a neighborhood park (green common area).

S.H. regularly plays with the neighborhood

children, where it is common for games and

scrimmages to be played at the neighborhood

school and park. S.H. also enjoys after school

programs at local schools and churches, such

as art, [Awana] bible study, and bible

vacation school.

G. Christian. The Harris family is Christian.

They pray to God together before dinner, to

give thanks for God’s blessings. They

routinely attend Christian community

functions and maintain Christian friendships. Michael’s dad was a deacon in the

Baptist church. Nicole attended Bethel

Christian college. Faith in Jesus Christ is

absolutely central and essential to the Harris

family. They are all devoted Christians. On

the basis of religion, Nicole has carried signs

at the State capitol expressing her opposition

to abortion, and Michael has also posted on

social media regarding his Christian opposition to products manufactured using

aborted fetal cells. S.H. in particular has

read about vaccines and genetically modified

organisms (GMOs) and has vocalized that

genetics is God’s province rather than man’s

to tinker away with. S.H. is informed that

C33

certain vaccines (according to the product

insert) were manufactured utilizing cell lines

from aborted human babies. The Harris

family is religiously opposed to vaccination

for the following reasons, in their own words:

“For religious reasons we are strongly

opposed to vaccination. For example,

the manufacturing of several vaccines

required by California for school

admission has involved aborted fetal

cell lines. Our family is religiously

opposed to abortion.

“And we are concerned about the

ingredients in all vaccines, including

how species and toxins are mixed

together for injection into God’s

creation, the human body. The bible

instructs us to treat our bodies as

clean vessels. Each body is a temple

for the Holy Spirit, and our fellowship

as followers of Christ is deeply

meaningful. See e.g., 1 John 2:27; 1

Corinthians 6:19; Deuteronomy 14:21;

Genesis 9:4.

“The bible further confirms that when

our religious faith and conviction

contradict human rules, we must obey

God first. See e.g., Daniel 3:13; Gospel

of Mark 12:17.”

H. Rights. Michael and Nicole Harris wish to

exercise their panoply of Constitutional

rights including fundamental Freedom of

Religion and Due Process, especially to

C34

parent and raise their own child free from

religious discrimination by the State.

However, California’s Health and Safety

Code, Section 120325, et seq. (a mandatory

vaccination law for schoolchildren) denies

this right by prohibiting S.H. from attending

any public or private school in the State of

California unless S.H. first receives a myriad

of pharmaceutical injections that would (1)

eradicate the Harris Family’s religious

beliefs that, for example, vaccines should not

be manufactured utilizing cell lines from

aborted human babies, and (2) categorically

exclude S.H. from participation in scientific

control group survey/study of unvaccinated

children. In late 2019 after the passage of the

most current amendment to California’s

mandatory vaccine law, California Senator

John Moorlach requested an oral opinion

from California legislative counsel on the

scope and penalties of the mandatory vaccine

law in California. Via Senator Moorlach’s

Chief of Staff, the Harris family was advised

of Legislative Counsel’s oral opinion that if a

private school were to accept a religious

exemption to vaccination, then the State may

be able to obtain a ‘writ of mandate’ to

compel compliance with the State law.

Children with religious opposition to vaccination are segregated in California schools,

because they are required to be homeschooled. The Harris family is strong and

determined, but segregation has caused the

Harris family to experience sadness that

S.H. has been separated from his friends at

school. S.H. would very much like the

opportunity to attend school. The Harris

C35

Family intends for S.H. to continue to

homeschool for the duration of this proceeding, thereby empowering the Executive

to desegregate.

42. Petitioner Traci Music (“Traci Music”) is the

parent of K.M., a minor child. Traci’s husband, the

father of K.M., is an officer in the United States

military. The Music family is domiciled in Alabama,

but may be transferred to another U.S. State during

the pendency of this proceeding. Tracy Music has two

other minor children J.S. and S.S. K.M. and J.S. are

both unvaccinated participants in the TCG American

Survey; however, their survey forms were submitted

after the survey cutoff date for the original data

analysis. S.S. is ineligible to participate in the TCG

American Survey because she was vaccinated

multiple times at an early age. S.S. suffered multiple

injuries as a result of vaccination, including legal

blindness in her left eye, and partial deafness. J.S.

has the following qualities that make him an

excellent candidate to participate in scientific

surveys and studies of unvaccinated individuals:

A. Healthy. J.S. is very healthy and has never

been diagnosed with any health issues, save

for a minor and temporary rash that cleared

up almost immediately. He has a primary

care physician who supports the Music

Family’s health choices. J.S. consistently

meets good fitness marks for height, weight,

and strength. Everyone in the Music family

is very hygienic.

B. Uncorrupted. J.S. was born in a hospital

setting and received no medical interventions (i.e., no Vitamin K shot). J.S. has never

had any pharmaceutical drugs or biologics of

any kind whatsoever, with the exception of

one round of antibiotics at a young age. The

C36

Music Family strongly prefers natural

remedies.

Athletics. J.S. is an excellent athlete (basketball, baseball, soccer, football, wrestling)

who has won multiple awards.

Intelligent. J.S. is a good student who has

excelled in academic achievement tests (especially mathematics).

Personality. J.S. is outgoing, sociable, confident, likeable, and honest. He has a good

reputation among parents and children in

the community for these character qualities.

Community. J.S. likes to travel around the

neighborhood and meet with friends, including going to local parks.

Religion. Traci Music had an orthodox Jewish upbringing. She has routinely asserted

religious exemption to vaccination for her

children on the basis of her beliefs (in her

own words), “the body is a temple” and “let

go, and let God”. Traci trusts God to provide

health and healing, rather than trusting

pharmaceutical companies to play god with

her children’s health. Traci has a religious

objection to the use of aborted fetal cell lines

in vaccine manufacturing. In her own words,

the vaccine is “contaminated” by its reliance

on abortion for manufacturing.

Rights. The Music Family wish to exercise

Constitutional rights to fundamental Freedom of Religion and Due Process, including

especially to parent and raise their own children free from religious discrimination by

the States. However, given the Music

family’s active military status requiring

Traci’s husband to immediately transfer the

family residence periodically among several

C37

US States, the Music Family remains in a

constant state of uncertainty whether they

will find themselves unexpectedly and unpredictably in a State that does not respect

their Constitutional rights to religious

exemption to vaccination at any particular

moment in time.

I. Homeschool. The Music family currently

homeschools but would like the opportunity

for all of their children to attend school. The

Music Family intends for their children to

continue to homeschool for the duration of

this proceeding, thereby empowering the

Executive to desegregate.

J. Extreme pressure to vaccinate. When

Traci Music’s daughter S.S. was approximately 1-year old, Traci Music suffered

extreme pressure by their pediatrician to

vaccinate S.S. with multiple vaccines at once.

For example, the pediatrician falsely claimed

that he had personally observed hundreds of

child deaths caused by measles, and the

pediatrician threatened to contact Arizona

Child Protective Services to take away Traci

Music’s children if she did not comply with

the pediatrician’s dictates to vaccinate. As a

young mother, Traci Music did not know her

legal rights and felt coerced by the authority

figure (pediatrician) to vaccinate. As a result,

S.S. received multiple vaccines, including for

example MMR and DTaP, resulting in the

aforementioned permanent vaccine injuries

to S.S.

K. Traumatic Discrimination. Approximately

3-years ago while stationed at Fort Bragg,

North Carolina, Traci Music was the subject

of an anonymous complaint to North

C38

Carolina Child Protective Services (CPS)

where the sole and exclusive basis of the

anonymous complaint was that Traci Music

was homeschooling and did not vaccinate her

children. CPS showed up unexpectedly at

Traci’s home while she was alone (her husband was stationed overseas for military

service). Traci was naturally frightened as

CPS demanded to enter the house and for

the children to remove articles of their

clothing so CPS could physically examine the

children. At the conclusion of this traumatic

experience for both Traci Music and her

children, Traci Music was informed by CPS

that it was actually not an offense for her to

homeschool the children, nor was it an

offense for the children to remain unvaccinated, but that CPS was simply “doing its

job” because “we have to investigate all

complaints”.

L. Candidate. K.M. is an unvaccinated baby

who was born at home (home birth). Like his

brother, K.M. is also an excellent candidate

to participate in scientific surveys and

studies of unvaccinated individuals.

Respondent

43. Respondent is the President of the United

States of America and therefore Commander in Chief

of the Armed Forces. He is named here exclusively in

his official capacity. In that capacity, he alone (or the

Federal Court issuing an order in respect of him) has

the national security authority to issue all of the

relief requested in this action, to issue an Order,

without limiting his ability to determine in good faith

how he might comply, to:

C39

A. Declare as a matter of national security a

National Health Emergency (hereinafter

“Emergency”);

B. Order a suspension (hereinafter “Suspension”) for up to two years of all vaccine

mandates

and

coercions

(hereinafter

“Vaccine Mandates”) throughout the United

States of America; and

C. Order a targeted National Health Survey of

a very large group of unvaccinated

Americans to compare the health of such

unvaccinated individuals to national health

data on the American population (hereinafter “Survey”).

National Security Request For

Constitutional Relief

44. This requested Order for national security

purposes is necessary to uphold protections

guaranteed in the Constitution for the United States

of America afforded to individuals exercising their

Constitutional right to remain unvaccinated, not the

least of which, is the right to life, liberty, and the

pursuit of happiness. Petitioners assert that the

government’s promise of a vaccine-exposed future

that carries a 60% chance of chronic health

conditions (on a trajectory that is increasing), most of

which prove ultimately deadly, is a theft of their

right to pursue happiness. Petitioners therefore ask

the Court for a Judgment in Petitioners’ favor that

Declaratory and Injunctive Relief is necessary since

the President has not yet fulfilled his duties required

by the Constitution for the United States of America

and his Oath of Office to faithfully execute the laws

of the United States of America (as herein alleged).

45. The President inherits innumerable policies

from previous administrations (“Predecessors”),

C40

including vaccination policies. The President has not

been afforded the opportunity to objectively analyze

the Nation’s vaccination policies due to the judicially

noticeable fact number three stated above in

paragraph 24c:

“Numerically Undefined. “The United

States government has never publicly evaluated vaccines numerically for longterm or cumulative health risks, in

comparison to a large group of fully

unvaccinated individuals.”

46. On February 18, 2017, within 30 days of

taking Office, President Donald J. Trump tweeted, “I

inherited a MESS and am in the process of fixing it.”

Nearly two years later he tweeted he was still,

“cleaning up the mess [he] inherited.” The Predicament is part of the mess the President inherits.

47. The President has not had, nor taken, the

time to assess and address long-term, cumulative

health damages of vaccines on Americans. No

government survey has been taken and no study has

been conducted on the health of a very large number

of unvaccinated Americans. This scientific vacuum

amounts to nothing short of an ongoing human

medical experiment that has no chance of advancing

medical knowledge concerning the risks of vaccination, and accompanying long-term effects on

public health.

48. The President inherits the Predicament,

and has not yet ordered a Suspension and a Survey

to address it, such as by comparing the “unavoidable

injury and death” associated with the administration

of a vaccine and conducting a scientific risk to benefit

ratio evaluation.

C41

49. Even though the President’s Predecessors

did not remedy the Predicament, the duty now falls

upon the President to issue an Order to save the

country. For example, the President has reasonable

executive discretion:

A. To select the reasonable manner of enforcing

the Constitution for the United States of

America, including enforcing federal civil

rights protections for unvaccinated individuals who have been segregated out of the

military, schools, and workplaces.

B. To proactively desegregate the military, as

well as schools and workplaces receiving

Federal funding or Federal contracts.

C. To declare that separate is not equal when

the vaccinated and unvaccinated are forcibly

separated in American society.

D. To declare that for the surveying of

unvaccinated individuals to be conducted

scientifically and without fear of retribution,

an unvaccinated control group must remain

intact and remain free from discrimination

with respect to their military service,

education, livelihood, travel, and religious

freedom.

As set forth herein, it is an ongoing unreasonable

abuse of discretion for the President to neglect the

scientific method that requires true control groups (of

entirely unvaccinated individuals as the controls)

able to numerically confirm vaccine risk and

therefore save this Nation from imminent collapse.

References in this Verified Petition to the President’s

duty to exercise his reasonable discretion shall not be

interpreted to suggest that rational basis review of

that discretion is appropriate. To the contrary, the

material infringements upon Petitioners’ fundamental rights, as alleged herein, necessitates strict

C42

scrutiny of the President’s reasonable discretion

(such that reasonable discretion refers to a compelling reason). There is no compelling reason the

President is neglecting the scientific method. Nor is

neglecting the scientific method a narrowly tailored

means to achieving a compelling government

interest. In this case, strict scrutiny requires, among

other important inquiries, an acknowledgment that

the scientific method requires true control groups (of

entirely unvaccinated individuals as the controls)

able to numerically confirm vaccine risk and

therefore save this Nation from imminent collapse.

50. The four judicially noticeable facts in

paragraph 24 above prove that the very survival of

this Nation is in jeopardy if the President declines to

exercise his reasonable discretion to the best of his

ability, and therefore, Petitioners request relief

under the President’s nondiscretionary duty to

ensure the survival of the Nation. The context of

such nondiscretionary duty is qualified by Article II,

section 8, of the Constitution for the United States of

America: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will

faithfully execute the Office of President of the

United States, and will to the best of my Ability,

preserve, protect and defend the Constitution for the

United States.”

51. Petitioners are intentionally requesting

relief of a fundamental constitutional nature, and

exclusively requesting that relief from this Court in

respect of the President as President of the United

States of America and as Commander in Chief of the

Armed Forces. Petitioners are intentionally not

requesting relief from any agencies beneath the

President, nor are any agencies beneath the

President able to provide the fundamental relief

requested due to the national security emergency

proven by the four judicially noticeable facts.

C43

Petitioners request no statutory relief or regulatory

relief whatsoever, and indeed to even attempt to

petition for same would fruitlessly splinter the case

and make the requested relief impossible, as

conflicting court orders could be issued in differing

jurisdictions among a patchwork of ever-evolving

statutes, rules, and regulations that both perpetuate

and conceal the National Health Pandemic. The root,

branches, leaves, and fruit of this case are entirely

constitutional.

52. Petitioners specifically do not seek relief

from agencies such as Health and Human Services,

Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease

Control, etc. (hereinafter “Subordinate Executive

Agencies”) because government agencies are

categorically unable to perform the relief requested

in this case to save the Nation and safeguard

Petitioners’ Constitutional rights in the context of

national security. Subordinate Executive Agencies

are vigorously involved in vaccine licensing,

recommendation, promotion, and product sales.

A. As one example, CDC recommended vaccine

schedules are recommended rather than

mandated, so the Subordinate Executive

Agencies are not the only cause of, and

cannot offer relief to end this National

Health Epidemic, nor solve the Predicament.

The State and local governments who

interface with such federal licensing,

recommendation, promotion, and product

sales participate in their own ever-changing

patchwork of mandates and coercion techniques. Any attempt by Petitioners to obtain

national security relief from State and local

authorities would be impossible for both

practical and jurisdictional reasons.

C44

B. As a second example, the Secretary of the

HHS is one of Respondent’s Subordinate

Executive Agencies. Such Secretary was and

is required to form a task force and report to

Congress every two years on the advancements and improvements in research on

vaccines, in order to reduce the risks of

adverse reactions to vaccines. 42 U.S. Code §

300aa–27 (a) (2). A stipulated order entered

July 9, 2018 in the United States District

Court (Southern District of New York)

evidences that HHS has no evidence that the

Secretary completed any of the 16 reports, biannually pursuant to U.S. Code § 300aa–

27(c) (“Report Within 2 years after December

22, 1987, and periodically thereafter ...”) See

PRJN2, section 37. Even if the Secretary had

complied with the law and reported to

Congress, it would still be impossible for the

Secretary or Congress to order the national

security relief requested in this action while

simultaneously managing the foreign affairs

necessary to preserve the Nation.

53. The President is the Chief Executive of the

Subordinate Executive Agencies that are vigorously

involved in the Predicament. State and their local

health agencies adapt and require federally approved

public health policies (“Policy”) to be mandated

(hereinafter “Govt. Mandates”). Govt. Mandates are

the final expression of federally approved public

health policies which together contribute to the

Pandemic.

V. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

54. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction

under the Constitution for the United States of

C45

America, and also incidentally under 28 U.S.C. §§

1331 and 1343(a)(3) so the Court may preside over

Petitioners’ claims under the Constitution for the

United States of America. The Court has additional

remedial authority under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201(a) and

2202.

55. Diversity of Citizenship exists and Venue in

the Eastern District of California is proper.

56. This action arises under those specific

aspects of the oath of office in Article II, Section 1, of

the Constitution for the United States of America,

which aspects are not political questions, but rather

which are necessary to ensure the very survival of

the Nation itself during an emergency: “I do solemnly

swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the

office of President of the United States, and will to

the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend

the Constitution for the United States of America.”

Petitioners do not seek justiciability over any

political questions reserved to the President, but

rather Petitioners assert justiciability with respect to

the Court’s fundamental power under Article III of

the Constitution for the United States of America, to

act as an intermediary between the President of the

United States of America and the people of the

United States of America, on the specific issues of

declaratory

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.