This is the last entry verbatim from the Complaint Beaudoin v Baker et al Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-11356-NMG. Very simply, this is what I am asking the judge to order.
If a Plaintiff gets past standing, thejudge then hears the matter for injunction or temporary restraining order (“TRO”) (I know the name TRO is more associated with stalkers or bad break-ups. But this is the term for a really fast and immediate injunction. It’s slightly different in that it is often ex parte, meaning that the other party may not be in court to defend themselves; and the judge is being asked to provide an order on a short term basis to stop or prevent a harm that is occurring or may occur - kind of an emergency type of thing).
For injunctive issues, there are a few elements that must be argued for the judge to decide in favor of the order. The sets of requirements are slightly different across the three types of injunction: temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, permanent injunction. The requirements set from which each type draws consists of showing there is 1) no remedy “at law” such as monetary compensation or a contract fulfillment, 2) there exists an immediate irreparable injury that only an order can solve, 3) in an analysis of balance of equities, or balance of harms and benefits, to the plaintiff and defendant, should the injunction be issued or not issued, the balancing test must tip in plaintiff’s favor in order to grant the injunction, 4) the injunction shall not be contrary to the public interest (this can be another balancing test - does it cost the public $1? Or will the injunction add another 15 minutes to the commute of 250,000 people each morning?), 5) (and I very much dislike this one) the plaintiff must show a likelihood of success on the merits, meaning that on the evidence presented in the complaint itself, the plaintiff must have shown a likelihood of winning the case and securing the injunction.
And if I’ve achieved standing, and if I’ve met the injunction elements, and if I’ve proven the elements of each statutory law in each count, then the judge should provide the relief sought for each count proven. Keep in mind that this is a court of equity. There is no option for a jury. This is a judge-only matter. The judge can go above the law, but not in contravention to it, in his capacity as a chancellor sitting in equity, or in chancery. That is, he can provide relief sought or make up his own relief that he feels is fair and equitable.
Here’s the final entry of verbatim text from the Complaint.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in his favor and grant the following relief:
A. Issue a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the Defendants to provide Plaintiff access to the Massachusetts Immunization Information System (“MIIS”) and VITAL records, a workspace in a state office, and a robust computer with Excel so that Plaintiff may perform the correlation that all public health agencies in the nation have avoided performing thus far;
B. Issue a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the Defendants to provide Plaintiff access to Massachusetts autopsy reports and medical files of decedents, a workspace in a state office, and a robust computer with Excel so that Plaintiff may perform the correlation that all public health agencies in the nation seem to have avoided performing thus far;
C. Issue a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the Defendants to provide Plaintiff the COVID-19 vaccination records of Brianna McCarthy, Eden MacDonald, Holly Hodgdon, Charles Casella, Abigail Fitzgerald, Cassidy Baracka, and Preston Settles;
D. Issue a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining all persons within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from administering any COVID-19 vaccine until such time as the Commissioner of MA DPH reviews the alleged vaccine-caused deaths detailed in EXHIBIT F and personally assures this court in a sworn statement that the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines outweigh the risks of injury or death in the context of all the Massachusetts data;
E. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants, their officers, officials, agents, servants, employees, and all persons acting in concert or participation with them, from continuing to engage in unlawful and fraudulent conduct as alleged herein;
F. Declaratory judgment and order that Defendants must correct the Death Certificates to reflect the true and known causes of death and delete the false causes;
G. Declaratory judgment and order that Defendants must make a public declaration and notice to all Massachusetts news organizations in TV, radio, newspaper, and podcasts that fraud was committed, that death counts from COVID-19 have been grossly exaggerated, and that the COVID-19 vaccine killed far more people than previously known, including younger ages;
H. Grant Plaintiff his attorney"s fees incurred in bringing this action, to the extent authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or other law;
I. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: August 22, 2022
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN PAUL BEAUDOIN, SR. (pro se)
Show standing to be heard
Show evidence
Get injunction
I had cause to look at another CdC article from six (6) months ago in March. The good thing about writing and publishing these articles is that it memorializes one’s thoughts in a moment in time. I forgot about the legal analysis I did regarding this vaccine. And now, I may use some of that article, if I get to the point of oral arguments. Now that you’ve read about my case against Baker et al here, I recommend you go back and take a look.
The article is The Legal Calculus of a Death Lottery and can be found here.
God Bless you all.
John 14:6
Don’t get that idea that I’m a Bible thumping knower of verses. I only know about 3 or 4 by reference and I’ve only recently come to have true faith. A few verses mean much to me. My son, John, God rest his forever 20yo soul, was born the 14th day of June, hence the verse you see above. And the verse you see below pertains to the times in which we now struggle against the machine of government gone tyrannical.
Isaiah 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Whoa, else woe, Joe
You speak for many, both living and deceased, doing so far better than I am able.
Though my faith in the judicial system is greatly diminished, it is not extinguished.
Wishes are one thing, prayers are another. Possibly there is a place where the lines blur. I'm choosing the prayer path. Prayer is energy in use.
May positive energy through prayer come your way.
Blessings on you and your efforts.
I am sympathetic. I hope you are able to get the relief you are asking for. I assume, in spite of your seeming erudition, that you are representing yourself in the proceedings that you are bringing. Unfortunately, I think it is extremely unlikely that a court will grant a pro-se litigant such far-reaching remedies that have huge public policy implications. Assume for a moment that you get in front of a judge whose gut tells him or her that the injections are killing people and that adverse effects and deaths are being covered up. That's extremely unlikely. But then ask yourself, how many judges are likely to be willing to go out on that long of a limb, even if in their gut they know you're right?