BEAUDOIN v BAKER (Governor of Massachusetts)

Complaint for TRO & Injunctions specifying massive FRAUD from MA Dept. of Public Health

Thousands of hours of research, documentation, legal analysis, data forensics, first-person and second-person interviews, statutory legal research, and emotionally charged anecdotes of loss of family members, friends, and co-workers culminated in a lawsuit filed today in a court of equity, the United States District Court in the District of Massachusetts.

There will be many articles written about this case. This is the second one after Preview - EXHIBIT F found here. A good start to this is an explanation of “standing” doctrine. “Standing” is how many cases against the government are dismissed. The language usually found upon dismissal is “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” It flows from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6).

Why dwell on “standing” when there are substantive issues of vaccine-caused deaths on which to focus? The answer lies in the natural rights of free men beyond any one issue like vaccines in which the government has killed hundreds of thousands of its own citizens. Natural law, individual liberties, and personal sovereignty in bodily autonomy are primary rights that “standing” doctrine has infringed upon through mission creep over more than a century of cases focused on civil procedure of “standing.”

CdC meant to write a longer, deeper dive into something titled Iqbal’s Revenge. That will have to wait for another time, but it is very important for Americans to understand the rights they’ve lost through bad Supreme Court decisions related to “standing”.

Let’s make this easy. Iqbal is a Pakistani man who was captured and held in a federal jail in New York City after the 9/11 attacks. While in prison, he apparently was beaten. Later, he was deported to Pakistan. He sued all involved in his abuse including, through respondeat superior, all the way up to Attorney General John Ashcroft and Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller. Yes, that Robert Mueller, who seems to be involved in all the controversial decisions that intruded on Americans’ privacy and rights. The Patriot Act was a horrible decision based on fear.

The allegation is that Iqbal was held based on race, ethnicity, and national origin at the direction of Robert Mueller. The District Court (first level) denied the Motion to Dismiss by the government defendants and allowed the case to proceed. However, the government appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (second level and just under the Supreme Court) for a decision about “standing” before proceeding in the case (they sought and interlocutory opinion from a higher court). Meanwhile, the Supreme Court was deciding a “standing” case, Bell Atlantic Corp. v Twombly, while Iqbal awaited a hearing in the Second Circuit.

Shortcut —> Iqbal lost on some made-up words from both the Twombly case and in his own case. No way were they going to allow a Pakistani to sue the Attorney General of the United States. But it’s not just a one-off case. It’s a seminal precedent-setting case that has to do with what “standing” is and whether someone can sue the government for infringement of rights.

Without getting into details, simply understand that since Iqbal, most cases against the government for deprivation of rights have been dismissed based on the SCOTUS decision in Iqbal. Oh what revenge he has had upon citizens of USA. Because one Pakistani was not allowed to sue in USA based on “standing,” thousands of Americans have lost cases on this procedural basis before ever being heard on a substantive basis. Justice has been denied to thousands because of the one bad decision in Iqbal. Yes, Iqbal has his revenge against Americans. We lost freedoms because of his appeal to SCOTUS.

---

In Beaudoin v Baker (2.0), “standing” is based on Beaudoin having been unenrolled from law school because of his refusal to vaccinate for COVID-19. Beaudoin’s standing is based on denial of equal protection of the laws. He was singled out and refused the opportunity for a legal education that the COVID-19 vaccinated were offered. Time will tell if this is enough standing.

The battle has just begun. And the substantive arguments are soon to be had, if the 12(b)(6) that is sure to come is survived by Beaudoin.

---

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.” John 14:6

https://viaveravita.com (check out the first menu pick)