« First « Previous Comments 422 - 438 of 438 Search these comments
Devout Christian social worker suing NHS-backed care firm which rescinded £25,000-a-year job offer over his beliefs on LGBTQ+ movement
In a series of very influential studies, McKinsey (2015; 2018; 2020; 2023) reports finding statistically significant positive relations between the industry-adjusted earnings before interest and taxes margins of global McKinsey-chosen sets of large public firms and the racial/ethnic diversity of their executives. However, when we revisit McKinsey’s tests using data for firms in the publicly observable S&P 500® as of 12/31/2019, we do not find statistically significant relations between McKinsey’s inverse normalized Herfindahl-Hirschman measures of executive racial/ethnic diversity at mid-2020 and either industry-adjusted earnings before interest and taxes margin or industry-adjusted sales growth, gross margin, return on assets, return on equity, and total shareholder return over the prior five years 2015–2019. Combined with the erroneous reverse-causality nature of McKinsey’s tests, our inability to quasi-replicate their results suggests that despite the imprimatur given to McKinsey’s studies, they should not be relied on to support the view that US publicly traded firms can expect to deliver improved financial performance if they increase the racial/ethnic diversity of their executives.
Shareholders should SUE the boards that imposed low-competence diversity hire executives on them. This was a direct violation of the responsibility of boards to act in the interests of shareholders.
On July 14, 2022, Philipp Kruse filed a carefully worded comprehensive legal complaint against the Swiss Regulatory authority known as Swissmedic for their role in enabling deployment of the COVID mRNA “vaccines” into the population of Switzerland. On 28 March 2024, the complaint was refiled with substantial updates and amendments. ...
Criminal acts performed by Swissmedic
Initial authorization that breaches the law and duties
Perpetuation of illegal authorizations that breach the law and duties
Disregard for all additional indications of risk
Absence of a "life-threatening or debilitating" disease
No benefits from ineffective to harmful mRNA injections
Omission of the most elementary safety and effectiveness tests
Swissmedic blocked effective alternative treatments
Benefit-risk analysis – Clearly a negative profile
Continuing despite an obviously negative benefit-risk ratio
No product monitoring proportionate to the risks
Misleading information not proportionate to the risks
Medical malpractice – lack of information, lack of reports
Swissmedic out of control and acting to the detriment of the state and the population ...
Having filed this legal complaint, he posted a PDF copy on “X” for download and review, promptly resulting in “X” designating his account “Temporarily Restricted” due to “unusual activity”. ...
In the present case, we are dealing with the greatest danger to and violation of human health caused by medicinal products themselves and by misinformation from public officials in this regard that has ever occurred in the history of Switzerland. The mRNA "vaccines" against SARS-CoV-2 infections, which are largely ineffective and pose an above-average risk to human health, have been proven to pose a far greater threat to the healthy population than the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen itself, against which these "vaccines" were supposed to protect.
Covid Shot Mandate Suit Moving Forward
On the morning of October 4, 2021, anesthesiologist Dr. Christopher Rake went to work at the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles. Within hours, he was gruffly frog marched by security out of the hospital.
His crime? Not wanting to get the covid shot.
Rake is now one of six main plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against the Board of Regents of the University of California system, a suit that the UC system tried - but failed - to get thrown out in January.
“This is one of the most important covid-related cases in the country,” said attorney Warner Mendenhall. “We are striking at the very heart of pandemic insanity.”
At the core of the case are issues being able to decide what happens to one’s own body, free speech, employment retaliation, medical ethics, government overreach, and the very idea of “informed consent” codified in California law after the Nazi Doctors trials in Nuremberg after World War II.
“This is one of the most important covid-related cases in the country,” said attorney Warner Mendenhall. “We are striking at the very heart of pandemic insanity.”
At the core of the case are issues being able to decide what happens to one’s own body, free speech, employment retaliation, medical ethics, government overreach, and the very idea of “informed consent” codified in California law after the Nazi Doctors trials in Nuremberg after World War II.
One thing that people may not know is that federal tort claims applies if you are a victim of the federal government.
So, if my car is hit by an uninsured illegal, sue the federal government?
Pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca has admitted that its widely used Covid vaccine, branded Covishield, can cause rare side effects including blood clots and low platelet count.
Covishield was developed by the British-Swedish company in collaboration with Oxford University, UK, and produced by the Serum Institute of India. It was widely administered in over 150 countries, including Britain and India.
A class action lawsuit filed in the UK claimed that the vaccine led to deaths and severe injuries and sought damages up to £100m for about 50 victims.
One of the complainants alleged that the vaccine caused him a permanent brain injury after he developed a blood clot, preventing him from working.
While AstraZeneca has contested these claims, it admitted for the first time in one of the court documents that the vaccine can “in very rare cases, cause TTS”, or Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome, which is characterised by blood clots and a low blood platelet count in humans.
“It is admitted that the AZ vaccine can, in very rare cases, cause TTS. The causal mechanism is not known,” the company said in the court documents in February, The Telegraph reported.
A jury has reached a $1 million verdict against a private high school in Mountain View that expelled two students after a photo of them wearing acne masks was interpreted as blackface.
The students, Holden Hughes and Aaron Hartley, will get $500,000 each from St. Francis High School after they were swept up in a racial controversy amid the Black Lives Matter movement.
Hughes and Hartley will also get reimbursed for tuition, which was estimated to be $70,000 total for their three years attending the school at 1885 Miramonte Ave.
Their attorney, Krista Baughman, said the ruling extends protections from a California Supreme Court decision that mandated fair procedure rights for students at private universities.
This case extends these protections to private high schools, including religious institutions, ensuring students receive notice of charges and a fair opportunity to respond before getting disciplined, Baughman said. ...
The picture of the boys, taken at a sleepover in August 2017, went viral during the Black Lives Matter movement and sparked a parent-led protest in June 2020.
Within 24 hours, administrators said the boys could either leave or be expelled ahead of their senior year, the suit said.
The blackface was actually a green face mask that darkened, the suit said.
Parent Alicia Labana was named in the original lawsuit for allegedly posting the photo on Facebook while organizing a march at the school. ...
Because of the controversy, Hughes said his family put up security cameras around their home and asked Los Altos police to do extra patrols.
Hartley said he had to move three hours away to finish high school online without getting harassed or ridiculed.
The boys said the controversy jeopardized their future college and career prospects. They lost friends, sleep and the final year of their high school experience, according to the lawsuit.
Éloïse Boies, pictured above, is a YouTuber with the channel 'Élo Wants to Know.' She has been granted authorization to proceed with a class-action lawsuit against YouTube. The lawsuit alleges that the platform has been censoring content related to the pandemic, vaccines, and the Covid-19 virus that it disagrees with, citing it as medical misinformation.
The plaintiff, Éloïse Boies, who is legally represented by William Desrochers, alleges that YouTube, owned by Google LLC, censored three of her videos. YouTube cited a violation of its platform policy, stating that Boies spread "incorrect medical information contradicting that of local health authorities or the World Health Organization (WHO) regarding COVID-19." ...
The plaintiff primarily argues that YouTube's content control related to the COVID-19 pandemic is an unlawful an intentional infringement on freedom of expression, which is protected by the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
Google contends that it hasn't breached the Charter since it's not obliged to offer a space for sharing videos regardless of their content. Additionally, it asserts that its platform is private and can be managed according to its own rules and preferences.
Superior Court Judge Lukasz Granosik mentions in his judgement that "Freedom of expression does not only mean freedom of speech, but also freedom of publication and freedom of creation. Granosik then quotes from the Supreme Court of Canada saying, "it is difficult to imagine a guaranteed freedom which is more important than freedom of expression in a democratic society."
Judge Granosik concluded after reviewing all the facts in the case that, "If Google manages and controls the content found on the YouTube platform and therefore takes actions in this direction, it cannot immediately deny all responsibility. If it carries out censorship by preventing certain people from posting videos and prevents other people from viewing these same videos, it thus hinders the free circulation of ideas and exposes itself to having to defend its ways of doing things."
« First « Previous Comments 422 - 438 of 438 Search these comments
Corporations in particular are afraid of lawsuits because they have a lot of money. Sue them first.
But it's also useful to sue the government when they are violating our rights.
A nice suit started by https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.org/ :