NC Appellate Judge Opines PREP Act Protects Forced Vaccination After Minor Given Deadly COVID Shot Without Parental Consent

Article posted with permission from the author, Suzanne Hamner.

Recently, a North Carolina court judge opined in a lawsuit that the PREP Act preempted State law and protected defendants from being held liable for battery, violation of God-given individual unalienable rights, violation of bodily autonomy, and “plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights”. The case involved a minor child who attended Western Guilford High School in Greensboro, North Carolina who was given a CONvid-1984 injection without parental consent and despite his declaration that he did not want the shot. The clinic workers gave the shot to him anyway.

A North Carolina Court of Appeals found that a clinic, where personnel gave a 14-year-old boy a COVID-19 shot without his consent or parental consent, was protected by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act).  The court concluded that the Guilford Board of Education, which hosted the clinic, was also covered by the PREP Act.

Despite calling the act of forcing a child to get a COVID-19 shot against his will and without his parent’s consent, “egregious,” the court unanimously concluded that the PREP Act preempted state law and protected the defendants from being held liable for battery, violation of Tanner’s mother’s constitutional liberty and parental rights, and violation of Tanner’s bodily autonomy and plaintiffs’ federal constitutional rights.

• Activate Your Own Stem Cells & Reverse The Aging Process – Choose “Select & Save” OR Join, Brand Partner & Select Silver To Get Wholesale Prices
• Get your Vitamin B17 & Get 10% Off With Promo Code TIM
• How To Protect Yourself From 5G, EMF & RF Radiation
• Protect Your Income & Retirement Assets With Gold & Silver
• Grab This Bucket Of Heirloom Seeds & Get Free Shipping With Promo Code TIM
• Here’s A Way You Can Stockpile Food For The Future
• Stockpile Your Ammo & Save $15 On Your First Order
• Preparing Also Means Detoxifying – Here’s One Simple Way To Detoxify

The minor child, Tanner Smith, attended Western Guilford High School in Greensboro, North Carolina when the school district sent a letter to his parents stating that Tanner was one of the students who may have been exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and that, unless he got tested, he would not be able to “return to football practice until cleared by a public health professional.” The letter set forth that one of the local schools would be hosting a free clinic offering testing the following day. The letter explained that “consent for testing is required.”

The following day, Tanner’s stepfather took him to the clinic at the local school for the free testing so that Tanner could return to football practice. The school district failed to inform the parents that there was also a free vaccination clinic along with the free testing at the school that same day. While Tanner’s stepfather waited in the car, Tanner filled out a form that he believed was for the free testing needed to return to football practice. At that time, one of the clinic workers attempted to reach out to Tanner’s mother but she was not available. Tanner’s stepfather who was waiting outside the clinic was not called.

Tanner made it clear to the clinic workers that he was there for a COVID-19 test and not for the COVID shot and that he did not want a shot. However, one of the clinic workers was heard to have said, “give it to him anyway.” Despite his protest and the clinic’s failure to get parental consent, Tanner was given a Pfizer/BioNTech Comirnaty COVID shot.

Tanner and his mother sued the school district and the vaccine clinic alleging battery, violation of Tanner’s mother’s constitutional liberty and parental rights, violation of Tanner’s bodily autonomy and violation plaintiffs’ federal constitutional rights. The trial court dismissed the complaint due to the PREP Act shielding the defendants and the decision was appealed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. While North Carolina state law provides that “a health care provider shall obtain written consent from a parent or legal guardian prior to administering any vaccine that has been granted emergency use authorization and is not yet fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to an individual under 18 years of age,” the court found that the PREP Act pre-empts state law.

The court acknowledged that the intent of the state law is to protect bodily autonomy and parental rights and that the violation suffered by the plaintiffs when Tanner was given the shot against his wishes was outrageous, but ultimately concluded that the state statute was preempted by the federal PREP Act.

What does this mean? For all of those who have fought to get “vaccine exemptions” under state law for religious, medical, or philosophical reasons, an appellate judge in North Carolina issued a “ruling” the PREP Act – federal legislation passed in 2005, overruled State law and statute. It means even with an exemption a “covered entity” would be protected if giving a child a “vaccine” without parental consent if “the Secretary of Health and Human Services declares that a disease, health condition or threat to public health or threat of same constitutes an emergency”. In that case, “the Secretary may recommend the use of one or more countermeasures.”

This could mean any disease such as measles, meningitis, hepatitis, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, human papillomavirus, smallpox, monkeypox, Ebola, Zika, Dengue, and a host of others. The State doesn’t even need an “out” on the vaccine exemption form, as the State of Georgia provided on their form. It would also apply to any experimental injections, emergency use authorization injections, or extended use access injections.

As a reminder, if the government can force you to put something into your body, it can force you to remove something from it as well.

The appellate judge upheld the lower court ruling by pointing out “this immunity extends to ‘any claim for loss that has a causal relationship with the administration to or use by an individual of a covered countermeasure.’ The PREP Act also has a broad provision preempting state law that provides that no state law may be in effect that conflicts with the PREP Act.” The court also concluded the CONvid-1984 shot administered to the child was a “covered countermeasure”, the ONS Medical Society, who administered the vaccine clinic and provided the injections, was “covered” under the PREP Act as a program planner and community group, and the school board was granted immunity under the PREP Act because “it was a “state or local government…[that] provides a facility to administer or use a Covered Countermeasure.”

The court wrote:

“Bound by the broad scope of immunity provided by the PREP Act, we are constrained to hold it shields Defendants, under the facts of this case, from Plaintiffs’ claims relating to the administration of the COVID-19 vaccine.”

The Appellate Court held that the injury to Tanner, vaccination against his wishes and without his parents’ consent, is considered under the PREP Act because the PREP Act is extremely broad, providing immunity for “all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or the use by an individual of a covered countermeasure.”

The PREP Act defines “Loss” as any type of loss. The court explained:

“Wisely or not, the plain language of the PREP Act includes claims of battery and violations of state constitutional rights within the scope of its immunity, and it therefore shields Defendants from liability for Plaintiffs’ claims”.

The complete references can be found in the source document.

This appellate court ruling does not bode well for parental rights, individual rights, medical right to informed consent, or other protections afforded in the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution for the united States of America. This “opinion”/ruling affirms the federal government’s intent of the PREP Act to “legalize” forcible injections upon the population despite any state legislation or local law. In other words, there is no “legal” recourse should any individual or entity acting under the declaration of the Secretary of Health and Human Services determination of a healthcare emergency when administering a “covered countermeasure” if a violation of a person’s rights occurs. These individuals or entities would not even be accountable if the administration of a “covered countermeasure” resulted in death. Remember, the declared emergency for COVID-19 has not been rescinded.

Where is the story of the father, not stepfather, taking issue with these individuals?

Recently, a family member underwent surgery for shoulder replacement. One of the questions asked was “Have you had a COVID ‘vaccine’”? The family member answered “no”. The pre-assessment nurse stated, “You are the first person I have encountered that hasn’t had one.” What would have prevented hospital staff from giving the family member a CONvid-1984 injection while under anesthesia, even after indicating they didn’t take vaccinations, if staff thought it was needed? Nothing; because according to an appellate court judge in North Carolina, these individuals are protected from liability under the PREP Act and this family member has zero rights in this instance. The next question is, “Would that injection have been documented?” If these “participants” are immune from liability for violations of bodily integrity, would they be held liable for non-documentation for a “medical intervention” involving a “covered countermeasure”? Even the “right to know” is jeopardized with this NC appellate judge’s opinion.

This case brought forth in North Carolina has now set a precedent for other States and judges who hold with disdain the Constitution and the rights recognized, guaranteed, and protected by it. We have to understand at this point that we are basically under some type of “medical martial law”. What if firearms are declared a “threat to public health” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services? Under the PREP Act, the Secretary may recommend the use of one or more countermeasures and those involved with implementing those countermeasures would be immune from liability and suit. Don’t roll your eyes and say that scenario is ridiculous. The PREP Act “legalizes” that which is unlawful, immoral, egregious, and outrageous. And, no State law or statute or the Constitution will protect you, as this NC appellate judge opined.

Without having control over your own body, regardless of any “declared” public health emergency, due to an unconstitutional piece of legislation, what other rights do you have? All rights are up for grabs under a declared public health threat. While those who are giving out these “countermeasures” may gloat about their immunity, this affects them and their children as well. As they revel in their perceived moral superiority, granted immunity for violations, their complicity will come back to haunt them when the shoe gets put on their own feet.

Don’t look for help from the “medical professionals” to adhere to long-held standards of practice and State law. They were happy to abandon those limitations when a public health threat was declared. It can be said “all” because where were those standing in support of informed consent, standing against “battery and assault”, in support of parental permission, and support of bodily autonomy by refusing to violate those laws and standards of practice? How many videos were posted on the internet of police and medical professionals “administering” CONvid-1984 injections using force or deception upon those actively refusing? The driver of the car for a group of robbers is not guilty of the robbery itself, but of being complicit and aiding in the robbery. In the case of these declared “countermeasures”, they are immune from liability for robbing people of their health by hook or by crook – an NC appellate judge agrees.

Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media