In 2021, six-year-old Leo Politella was given a COVID-19 vaccine while attending school against the direct instruction of his father. Three years later, this case could be headed to the United States Supreme Court. However, it is the path to the highest Court that may end up being the most significant facet of this story.
Liberty Nation News’ correspondent, John Klar, is an attorney on the case* who spoke exclusively with us to explore the ramifications of the upcoming filing, Politella v. Vermont.
Parental Consent
Mark Angelides: John, can you give us a brief background on how Leo came to be vaccinated against his parents’ wishes?
John Klar: Tony and Shujen Politella were not anti-vax, but because they knew the vaccine was early in development and children were at low risk from COVID-19, they did not want their son, Leo, vaccinated. Tony visited the school the week before the clinic and was assured Leo would not receive the vaccine. On the day of the clinic, Leo was given another student’s arm tag, and when he protested that he was not supposed to be vaccinated, he was distracted by the workers and jabbed against his will. It should be noted that Vermont schools received cash awards from the state if they achieved high vaccination rates.
MA: What happened when this was first brought to state court? And what do you think are the further ramifications of Vermont’s ruling?
JK: The family did not sue for vaccine injury against a manufacturer but for breach of duty by government representatives. The trial court surprisingly ruled that the federal PREP Act, which governs emergency vaccines such as the one used on Leo, provided immunity to the school officials. The Vermont Supreme Court agreed, so this becomes a binding precedent for future instances in Vermont and possibly for children in other states. School personnel could force jab any child with a PREP Act vaccine with complete immunity unless they cause “death or serious bodily injury.”
MA: What is it that you are asking the Supreme Court to rule on, specifically? What is the “question presented” you propose the Court answer?
JK: The question is whether the Vermont Supreme Court erroneously interpreted the PREP Act to pre-empt traditional constitutional rights and medical ethics for parents and children, including the core right of informed consent. We are asking SCOTUS to issue an opinion that the PREP Act was intended to protect Americans’ health, not eliminate their children’s liberties, and that Vermont and other state courts are wrong to imply pre-emption of basic rights.
MA: Have there been other cases – or are there other cases ongoing – that deal with this question?
JK: Supreme Courts in Wyoming and Nevada have agreed with Vermont, as well as the Kansas Court of Appeals and federal courts in Kentucky and Oklahoma. There is a similar case pending in North Carolina about a football player who was administered a shot against his family’s wishes that we expect will go the other way: We await that decision.
More Common Than You Might Think
MA: I wonder, John, if this were another type of vaccine, for example, measles or DPT, would there have been a different outcome from the Vermont courts?
MA: It’s terribly common for people to say they will fight a case to the Supreme Court, but the Court only takes a small fraction of appeals presented to it. What makes Leo’s case different and worthy of such an extraordinary appeal?
JK: The Court takes perhaps 150 out of some 8,000 filings annually. This case has improved odds because it is an issue of national importance and because there is a division between various courts and geographical districts. We believe this is the first petition on this specific issue, and we do not know what will happen in cases “behind” us – for instance, the North Carolina football player case may never be appealed beyond state court. It also concerns compelling facts – this was a very young child, and the school’s error was rather egregious. The case begs for justice. So, Leo’s case is particularly timely.
The SCOTUS Approach
MA: What is the timeline for this writ? And do you think the Supreme Court will grant it?
JK: It will likely be two months before the Court decides, though that may take longer. I am hopeful the Justices will grant our Petition because it is important for all children. The odds remain long, but ours are better than most!
MA: If that happens, what does the process look like?
JK: Both sides would file additional briefs followed by oral arguments in Washington, DC. If that happens, I am very confident we will win the case on the law. The Politellas would then resume seeking their “day in court” in Vermont.
MA: It seems to me – and I am not a lawyer – that should the Court take up the case, it has implications beyond that of vaccinations. What are your thoughts on this?
JK: Not really so much, in my view. The case is a narrow one of proper statutory construction and application of established doctrines of federal pre-emption. We are simply asking the Court to rule that Vermont and other states are wrong to expand PREP Act immunities in ways never intended by Congress, which shocks the conscience in cases like Leo’s. If the Court agrees, it need not make any ruling on constitutional issues with broader implications. The case is really quite narrow: “Does the immunity granted to vaccine manufacturers extend to healthcare workers who jab people without consent?”
MA: Will you be conducting oral arguments should the case be scheduled for a hearing?
JK: I expect so. You know how I like to talk!
*As a lawyer on the case, Mr. Klar may benefit from any award won.
Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.
No comments:
Post a Comment