Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Federal Judge Refuses to Take New Criminal Cases.

A federal judge in Milwaukee has taken the unusual step of refusing to accept new criminal cases and recusing himself from existing ones, in a move observers say is about politics, impropriety and, possibly, hurt feelings.

Federal Court Clerk Jon Sanfilippo says the way he sees it, the reason Judge J.P. Stadtmueller is refusing criminal cases "really springs from one case."

Sanfilippo, the only person at the federal courthouse in downtown Milwaukee who was willing to talk about the situation, says it all started after a ruling in July by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Prosecutors thought Stadtmueller showed bias in a gun case and took the rare move of asking the appeals court to remove him, which it did. Stadtmueller accused the U.S. attorney's office of judge-shopping.

The judge declined repeated requests for interviews; neither his colleagues on the federal bench nor the interim U.S. attorney for Milwaukee would comment.

Sanfilippo says since that ruling, Stadtmueller stopped taking new criminal cases from the government and recused himself from 22 existing ones. He is still taking civil cases, however.

"He believes that he's acting appropriately under the circumstances, trying to provide a situation where there's no problem in terms of perception," Sanfilippo says, "and as this has been unfolding, he's been very adamant about making sure he has a full caseload."

Frustration Over Types Of Cases

Before Stadtmueller was given a lifetime appointment to the federal bench in 1987, he ran the U.S. attorney's office in Milwaukee. Over the years, he has criticized the type of cases his successors have brought to federal court.

When Stadtmueller was a prosecutor, most federal cases involved white-collar crimes. Now, there are many more gun and drug cases, and the judge's frustration is apparent in court documents.

In taking Stadtmueller off the gun case, the appeals court ruled that he broke judicial rules by suggesting a plea bargain.

Stadtmueller had questioned the government's decision to bring the case to federal court, calling it "an embarrassment to the justice system." Documents also show Stadtmueller sought to avoid a conviction that would have sent the defendant to prison for at least 15 years.

'A Better Way'

Robin Shellow, a criminal defense attorney in Milwaukee, says she has seen a growing concern among judges over the federalization of street crime.

"In virtually every criminal sentencing in a drug case, Judge Stadtmueller remarks on the number of people who are in federal prisons on that particular day," she says.

Shellow says she has represented dozens of youths who were convicted of gun crimes and sent to prison for life.

"I think that has got to weigh heavily on judges who have been around for a long time and who are saying there's got to be a better way," she says.

But is that his job?

Janine Geske, a law professor at Marquette University and a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, says each judge has his or her own method of determining how best to achieve justice in the court.

"Judge Stadtmueller had the position in the U.S. attorney's office, and I'm sure it's tough when he sees things that he thinks, if he had been in that position, he would have done differently," Geske says.

Amid the speculation, Stadtmueller has not publicly explained why he is passing on criminal cases.

This could go on for a while. All the federal criminal cases in Milwaukee are now distributed among three judges instead of four. Stadtmueller told the court clerk he will resume taking criminal cases once a permanent U.S. attorney for Milwaukee is appointed.

That, however, could be months away

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Injunction To Stop Mandatory Flu Vaccinations.

Preliminary Injunction to Halt Mandatory Flu Vaccination in the U.S. Has Been Issued (sic, appears imminent)
by Barbara Minton, Natural Health Editor
(NaturalNews) A Preliminary Injunction to stop mandatory vaccinations has been issued in the United States District Court of New Jersey. This comes after a federal lawsuit opposing forced vaccines was filed in that court by Tim Vawter, pro se attorney, on July 31st with the federal government as defendant. When the judge signs the Preliminary Injunction, it will stop the federal government from forcing anyone in any state to take flu vaccine against their will. It will also prevent a state or local government from forcibly vaccinating anyone, and forbid any person who is not vaccinated from being denied any services or constitutional rights. Vawter's filings included a Complaint, and several pages of evidentiary Exhibits.

Vawter's legal papers have been written not only for filing in federal court, but additionally so they can be looked at by activists around the world for ideas on filing lawsuits in their own countries to help stop forced vaccinations. Vawter believes that as the truth of the dangers of flu vaccines continues to become known, banning the forced use of them will eventually succeed on a worldwide basis. He cautions people to avoid fear and keep themselves focused on the task of blocking forced vaccination.

Preliminary Injunction will immediately halt mandatory vaccinations in the U.S.

The Court, having heard the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and read the papers in its support, states in the Preliminary Injunction that it appears the federal government has engaged in some amount of negligence with regards to failure to properly investigate the safety of the flu vaccines scheduled for use in late 2009-2010, and the evidence submitted does warrant a more thorough investigation into the safety of the flu vaccines.

The Court ordered that the government shall be forbidden from forcing any person to be required to take any influenza vaccination against that person's free will and free choice. The government will not allow any state or local government, or any party, to force any person to be required to take any influenza vaccination against that person's free will and free choice.

It is further ordered that the government shall not deny any constitutional rights to any person who has not received a flu vaccine, nor allow any doctor, company, or other party to deny any of these people services such as medical care, attending school, or similar services or freedoms, nor can the government allow any doctors, companies, or other parties, to deny any of these people their constitutional rights. The only exception to this, where a person who does not get a flu vaccination might be denied certain services, shall be after it is shown in a court of law, with clear and convincing evidence, on an individual case-by-case basis, where due process and a right to a defense is allowed. Only then can a person be denied a particular service because the person did not receive a flu vaccine.

U.S. government sued for gross negligence and violation of the Constitution

In his Cause of Action, Vawter charged that the federal government has engaged in gross negligence by funding and promoting flu vaccines that are proven to be dangerous and manufactured with little oversight. The vaccines scheduled for use in late 2009 and 2010 contain heavy metals including thimerosal mercury, which have been proven to cause autism in children with lowered immune systems, and other dangerous and toxic ingredients. The federal government has stated it will force these flu vaccines onto the American public against their will, under a document signed by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

He further charged that the vaccine makers stand to earn billions of dollars selling vaccines, and are already spending tens of millions advertising a "Phase 6 Pandemic" that the evidence shows does not really exist. The federal government has not required the World Health Organization (WHO) to show evidence of such a pandemic. There has been no collection of facts, sworn testimony, witnesses being questioned, hearings being held, or lie detector tests being given when preposterous statements have been made. The WHO declared a massive "Phase 6 Influenza Pandemic", even though only a few hundred people worldwide had so far died of this swine flu virus, and when far more people die each year of regular flu.

Vawter noted there is a preponderance of evidence to show that the federal government so poorly trained its employees that they eagerly agreed with the unsubstantiated claims of the WHO in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Forced vaccination would violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the government to enter homes and force people to be vaccinated, or to forcibly remove people to another location for vaccination. It would also violate Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights by depriving people of liberty without due process of law.

Vawter charged that the federal government has engaged in gross negligence by failing to properly investigate factual evidence submitted by esteemed medical professions over many years which proves flu vaccines have caused serious damage to people. The CDC has stated that thimerosal mercury is being used in the new flu vaccines being prepared.

The government has failed to investigate profiteering. Billions of dollars in vaccine sales can cause organizations to falsify threats so as to cause unwarranted public hysteria leading to forced vaccinations.

The government is guilty of gross negligence because its employees failed to properly investigate the release of a case of live swine flu virus. One of the main companies the government deals with, Baxter Vaccines, was apparently involved in the transporting of live bird flu virus that was released on a public train earlier this year. A lab technician with the Swiss National Center for Influenza in Geneva had traveled to Zurich to collect eight ampoules, five of which were filled with the H1N1 swine flu virus. However, failure of the dry ice in their container allowed pressure to build up, and the ampoules exploded as the train was pulling into a station.

The highly reputable UK newspaper "the Telegraph" reported on July 2nd that flu vaccines tested on homeless people caused twenty-one of them to die.

Vawter charged there is a preponderance of evidence to show that government will not provide people being vaccinated with a list of the vaccine ingredients and possible negative side effects before they are vaccinated. Most of the public will not know this flu vaccine contains thimerosal mercury.

Vawter submitted an Order to force the government to publish vaccine ingredients and side effects, and to give this information to everyone who takes a flu vaccine, and do so at least 3 days prior to their vaccination. A denial of this order would violate Plaintiff's rights to demand the government obey the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by requiring it to engage in freedom of speech. The First Amendment not only allows a citizen to have freedom of speech himself, but it allows a citizen to demand his government engage in freedom of speech when it is promoting the use of such as these vaccinations to the public.

The government proclamation stating a person cannot sue for any damages he receives from the flu vaccine, completely bypasses the congress and the court system in violation of the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution which grants the right to sue to recover for damages. Vawter submitted an Order to deem unconstitutional any proclamation, rule or similar law that forbids people from suing for damages resulting from the vaccines of 2009 and 2010.

Vawter is seeking damages of $100,000.00 as the result of suffering depression, extreme anxiety and emotional duress when his nephew began life as a healthy, happy baby boy, only to come down with autism after being given baby vaccines that contained thimerosal mercury. For years his nephew has struggled with this incredibly debilitating, preventable condition. According to Vawter, a claim may be submitted not only by his nephew, but by others who have suffered damages from vaccinations.

Vawter claimed that several rules and proclamations detailed in the lawsuit are unconstitutional and claimed that if they are not stricken and amended, he and other people who may not be aware of the offenses or who may be unable to sue, will suffer pending "injury-in-fact" damages. As attorneys and law firms join this lawsuit, recovery requests will reveal the names of additional people who have suffered injuries so they can be contacted about recovering damages, as the law allows.

Motion for Preliminary Injunction claims some vaccines may contain live virus

Although much of the Preliminary Injunction is a reiteration of information contained in his lawsuit, there are a few additions of note. Vawter includes in his grounds the fact that since the manufacturing of flu vaccines involves first destroying a live flu virus, there is a possibility that live flu virus will be in some of the vaccines, causing even more damages to people who receive it, and spreading the virus.

He asked the Court to use federal law enforcement to initiate its own civil and criminal investigation into flu vaccine safety issue, as federal law allows for this.

He noted the days when Hitler's Nazi doctors forcibly gave shots containing adjuvants to innocent people, and reminded that Nazi ideology was stamped out precisely because of those atrocities. He claims it is unwise for the U.S. government to follow in the same path as the Nazis. America is a nation of civil laws, not a dictatorship that gives proclamations bypassing the courts and congress to demand forced vaccinations containing hazardous ingredients known to cause damages.

The forced vaccination debacle of 1976 that the government had to halt because it was injuring more people than it was protecting shows vaccine makers should not be allowed to force their vaccines on people who have no recourse. The prohibition against lawsuits by the injured gives the green light to vaccine makers to include thimerosal mercury in their new flu vaccines. When the Order deeming the forbidding of lawsuits as unconstitutional is given, any defendant will have to present factual proof in federal court, not just hearsay or advertising slogans, as so why the Constitution says it is okay to forbid people from suing to recover damages resulting from flu vaccine.

Medical professionals argue flu vaccines harm not just certain people but almost everyone who receives them. Yet the government has ignored factual evidence proving this, and instead listens to a profit run group of vaccine manufacturers who stand to earn billions of dollars as the government orders forced vaccinations on the public for the coming flu season.

The government has published a chart listing the WHO's "Phase 6 Influenza Pandemic" as being equal to an earthquake measuring 8.0 on the Richter Scale. This chart is preposterous because there are no factual criteria required for an "Influenza Pandemic" to be declared by the United Nations' WHO. The United Nations is a collective of numerous nations, most of whom have very different laws than the U.S. has, and where their leaders can simply declare or proclaim things to be so without judicial review, and their population must obey.

Glaxo Smith Kline stands to make $4 billion from its two flu vaccine drugs. CEO Andrew Witty has said his company has been preparing for a flu pandemic for thee years and has spent over $1 billion to expand its factories. Executives from Glaxo, Baxter, Novartis, and Sanofi Pasteur had seats at the advisory group that on July 13th recommended mandatory H1N1 vaccination for everyone in all 194 countries belonging to the WHO.

The fear mongering involved with this Phase 6 alert has been intense. An example being spread by interested parties is the story of a girl in England purported by the WHO to have died of swine flu because she was not vaccinated. A more thorough investigation later revealed the girl actually died of septic shock due to tonsillitis. The WHO, CDC and numerous vaccine companies have been extensively advertising dire yet apparently concocted warnings of flu pandemics. Yet only a small number of people worldwide have died from the new flu virus.

When influential TV newscasters questioned the WHO proclaiming a "Phase 6 Influenza Pandemic" without factual evidence to prove it, the WHO responded by simply stopping their tracking of swine flu cases, a bizarre behavior on the part of an organization designated to be the main hub for information gathering on the disease.

Copies of the Vawter's actual files can be viewed at:
This case DOES exist, and I was able to pull up (through PACER) the following docket report. Preliminary Injunction has definitely been filed (see Item #2 on the docket), but not granted, YET. Hearing on the Preliminary Injunction has been scheduled for Sept. 19, 2009.U.S. District CourtDistrict of New Jersey [LIVE] (Trenton)CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:09-cv-03803-JAP-TJBVAWTER v. FEDERAL GOVERNMENTAssigned to: Judge Joel A. PisanoReferred to: Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. BongiovanniCause: 18:241 Conspiracy Against Citizen Rights Date Filed: 07/31/2009Jury Demand: NoneNature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: OtherJurisdiction: U.S. Government DefendantPlaintiff TIM VAWTERpro se, and on behalf of others who may be unaware of the offenses or unable to sue represented by TIM VAWTER30 W. MAIN STREETSUITE 321FREEHOLD, NJ 07728(732) 294-4784PRO SEV.DefendantFEDERAL GOVERNMENTDate Filed # Docket Text 07/31/2009 1 Complaint Received. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Summons, # 3 Application IFP)(eaj) # 4 Text of Proposed Order) (Entered: 07/31/2009) 07/31/2009 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction To Forbid Forced Flu Vaccinations by TIM VAWTER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(eaj) (Entered: 07/31/2009)08/07/2009 3 Letter from Tim Vawter with Exhibit H. (Exhibit H is a DVD and has been forwarded to Chambers) (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Tim Vawter)(gxh) (Entered: 08/07/2009)08/14/2009 4 Letter from Tim Vawter requesting that his IFP application be reviewed with emergency, enclosing $350.00 filing fee if IFP application is not granted today, and requesting Summons to be issued. (Attachments: # 1 Letter from Richard B. Myers to Tim Vawter, # 2 Basic Moral Education Manual)(gxh) (Entered: 08/14/2009)08/14/2009 COMPLAINT against FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, filed by TIM VAWTER. (Filing fee $350 - receipt number 300 375993.) (Refer to docket entry 1 for the Complaint.)(gxh) (Entered: 08/14/2009)08/14/2009 5 SUMMONS ISSUED as to FEDERAL GOVERNMENT with answer to complaint due within 60 days. (gxh) (MAILED TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF) (Entered: 08/14/2009)08/18/2009 Set Deadlines as to 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Motion set for 9/21/2009 before Judge Joel A. Pisano. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (lk) (Entered: 08/18/2009)PACER Service CenterTransaction Receipt 08/26/2009 00:04:08PACER Login: ma3575 Client Code: Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 3:09-cv-03803-JAP-TJB Start date: 1/1/1970 End date: 8/26/2009Billable Pages: 1 Cost: 0.08
Mary Ann Hartzler 8/26