BEAUDOIN v BAKER (A vaccine opera 1)
Introduction, Parties, and why it is in federal court
Beaudoin v Baker et al was docketed August 23, 2022 in the late afternoon at the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts.
Docket No. 1:22-cv-11356-NMG complaint and major exhibits can be found on a website here.
Introduction
This Complaint is a request for injunctive relief where the source of fraudulent misrepresentation, purposely conducted, continues to harm both Plaintiff and the public. As a matter of equity, third party liability should be considered. In fairness and equity, the harm must cease forthwith; and the Court has the discretion to do so pre, pending, and post-investigation of the fraud claims herein.
Relying on false information obtained through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), sourced, in part, from Massachusetts Department of Public Health (“MA DPH”), Massachusetts School of Law (“MSLaw’) instituted a COVID-19 vaccination mandate for all students and staff. Plaintiff, a rising second-year law student, refused the vaccination because he has four pre-existing health issues consistent with thousands of COVID-19 vaccine injuries reported to VAERS even as of April 2021. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs prompted him to apply for a religious exemption offered by MSLaw. MSLaw never apprised the Plaintiff of the status of his application for a religious exemption. Rather, the only “status” that the School acted on was the Plaintiff’s student status, which the School unilaterally, capriciously, and arbitrarily changed to “unenrolled.”
Although Plaintiff is pursuing a remedy at law against MSLaw for pecuniary damages, there is no remedy at law that can undo MSLaw’s injurious acts against Plaintiff especially in consideration of its reliance on CDC and FDA misinformation; nor is there a remedy at law, sans the relief sought in this Complaint, that will prevent another law school from exacting the same or similar vaccination requirements on Plaintiff. Most, if not all, law schools require COVID-19 vaccination and do so based on the fraudulent misinformation issued by the CDC and FDA and sourced, in part, from MA DPH. Plaintiff is injured in being deprived of a legal education offered to all those who assume the risk of COVID-19 vaccination. This coercion, again, is based on fraudulent misinformation originated at MA DPH and disseminated by the CDC and FDA to law schools et al.
The fraudulent misinformation manifests from numerous Death Certificate records that wrongly list “COVID-19” as a cause of death when, more accurately, the deceased tested positive for strands of proteins which may have been SARS-COV-2 virus at one time. Specifically, numerous deaths caused by fentanyl overdose, heart attacks, cancer, and many others causes are labeled a “COVID-19” death when, in fact, COVID-19 had no causal relationship to the death. All these fraudulent misrepresentations aggregate to support a false narrative that has injured Plaintiff and continues to injure society by depriving generations of people of accurate information to make an informed consent and convincing institutions to coerce people under color of law to take an experimental biological product not fully tested in humans, and one that can possibly kill them and has killed many.
One example of the public interest and immediate irreparable harm being perpetrated upon The People is a 7-year-old girl named Cassidy Baracka from Groton, Massachusetts. Although she reacted within five (5) minutes of the vaccination and died within a few days after the second dose, enduring agonizing pain in those days, there was no mention of the COVID-19 vaccine on her Death Certificate. Instead, the medical examiner listed “COVID-19” as a cause of her death. This fraudulent misinformation by both omission and commission caused other parents to vaccinate their children, and only a few weeks after Cassidy died, Preston Settles, a 15-year-old boy, collapsed on a basketball court. His body was revived without brain activity and was kept alive by machine for a few weeks until Preston was removed from life support and died. The immediate nature of this TRO request is apparent and is predicated on the most important issue that any TRO could possibly be predicated upon; that is, the lives of children and people of all ages who are dying en masse in a death lottery in which the winners lose their lives. The evidence herein and information sought from Defendants are facts that Plaintiff, this Honorable Court, citizens of Massachusetts, citizens of U.S.A., and peoples of the world are entitled to hear in order to make informed consent to such a dangerous medical procedure as these injections.
Plaintiff contends that the only remedy for the personal injury he suffered and is suffering is the correction of the falsified information from the source, which is the Defendants. This remedy of “corrected" Death Certificates also serves the public interest and satisfies balance of equities because it will save a net number of lives, including many children.
Plaintiff, for his Complaint for TRO and other such relief against Charles D. Baker et al, known hereinafter as “Defendants”, alleges as follows:
PARTIES
Plaintiff is John Paul Beaudoin, Sr., aka “Coquin de Chien,” aka “CdD.”
Defendants are:
Charles D. Baker, Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Margaret R. Cooke, Commissioner of the Department of Public Health for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Mindy Hull, Chief Medical Examiner for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Janice y. Grivetti, Medical Examiner for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Michele N. Matthews, Medical Examiner for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Robert M. Welton, Medical Examiner for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Julie Hull, Medical Examiner for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
JURISDICTION
Because there are federal statutes under which this complaint arises, Plaintiff chose to take this complaint to federal court.
The federal statutes are:
18 U.S. Code § 1035 - False Statements relating to health care matters
18 U.S. Code § 1040 - Fraud in connection with major disaster or emergency benefits
18 U.S. Code § 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television
42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
18 U.S. Code § 241 Conspiracy Against Rights
18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, and
the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Summary
Factual allegations will follow in the next articles, then the Counts will be detailed. Thank you for your patience in reading this case in a multi-article series.
To summarize the complaint, Plaintiff was deprived of rights by an institution for legal education. He was kicked out for not taking the COVID-19 vaccination. That institution relied on information from the CDC. The CDC information was based on fraudulent misrepresentations from states, including specifically, Massachusetts death certificates.
But don’t think the CDC was duped by states. Not at all. The CDC participated in crafting legislation that solicited the unlawful behavior from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and other states.
They also conspired with social media to quash any public outcry of vaccine injury reported in VAERS. The CDC suppressed real information and spread misinformation that vaccines are “safe and effective.” This CdC considers the vaccines “unsafe and defective.”
The governments of the U.S. and of Massachusetts both worked against the well-being, health, and welfare of The People for whatever reasons are yet to be discovered or proven. Some of us know the reasons. The reasons are different for people at different levels of the conspiracy against rights. Proving the reasons in a court of equity or a court of law
Phenomenal. All my best wishes.
This is gonna be good!!