Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Companies Requiring Experimental mRNA Injections After Supreme Court Decision Can be Sued

  1. #1

    Companies Requiring Experimental mRNA Injections After Supreme Court Decision Can be Sued

    STARBUCKS, GE REVERSE COVID MRNA INJECTION MANDATES

    “We respect the court’s ruling and will comply,” Starbucks Chief Operating Officer John Culver wrote in the memo.

    Whatever you think of its coffee, Starbucks has the best legal counsel on the planet in their corporate offices, and they saw the writing of the wall of employees coming after them after being crippled up or killed by the shots. The Supreme Court slapped down the fig leaf which allowed companies to say - it wasn't us, it was OSHA that made us do it. That is why many companies were waiting for the Biden mandate, and resisting government pressure, for the legal cover.

    Now their bare asses are hanging and twisting in a legal limbo which releases the shot-makers from liability, but not the employers. Gimme that popcorn, son.

    One attorney who will help coordinate legal action is Thomas Renz. He is easy to find all over the web, part of Gen. Flynn's Time to Free America tour.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Coffee on notice
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.

  4. #3
    “We respect the court’s ruling and will comply,” Starbucks Chief Operating Officer John Culver wrote in the memo.
    Comply with what?

    The court's ruling applies to the Feds, not to Starbucks.

    Just ask Carhartt, Citigroup, et al.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Comply with what?

    The court's ruling applies to the Feds, not to Starbucks.

    Just ask Carhartt, Citigroup, et al.
    You might want to read the post before commenting, just sayin...
    Last edited by James_Madison_Lives; 01-21-2022 at 04:10 PM.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by James_Madison_Lives View Post
    You might want to read the post before commenting, just sayin...
    I read it. The court did not make any ruling with which Starbucks was compelled to comply.

    Their ruling did not tell Starbucks (or anyone else but the Feds) to do or not do anything.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    I read it. The court did not make any ruling with which Starbucks was compelled to comply.

    Their ruling did not tell Starbucks (or anyone else but the Feds) to do or not do anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    I read it. The court did not make any ruling with which Starbucks was compelled to comply.

    Their ruling did not tell Starbucks (or anyone else but the Feds) to do or not do anything.
    That's exactly right. The Starbucks lawyers cleverly worded the memo to imply compliance with OSHA, putting it on OSHA's jerking around when the family of some kid dead of vax myocarditis comes around suing. With the autopsies to prove it. These lawyers choose every single word for a reason. They know what you just said. But they chose to muddy the waters.

  8. #7
    I support any company requiring vaccines that dont work to be sued into oblivion. They are requiring it after they are aware .Bye.
    Do something Danke

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    I support any company requiring vaccines that dont work to be sued into oblivion. They are requiring it after they are aware .Bye.
    That.
    "Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by James_Madison_Lives View Post
    That's exactly right. The Starbucks lawyers cleverly worded the memo to imply compliance with OSHA, putting it on OSHA's jerking around when the family of some kid dead of vax myocarditis comes around suing. With the autopsies to prove it. These lawyers choose every single word for a reason. They know what you just said. But they chose to muddy the waters.
    No they didn't. The CEO explicitly said, “We respect the court’s ruling and will comply." They claimed compliance with the court, not with OSHA.

    The OSHA mandate was never enforced (and the court's ruling prevents it from being enforced until SCOTUS makes a final ruling on the case).

    Starbuck's in-house vaccine mandate was never anything that it was compelled to impose by the Feds.

    There is no court that is going to fail to recognize this, regardless of how any self-serving, face-saving "memo" might be worded. Any competent opposing counsel would see to it (and Starbuck's lawyers are not likely to be so stupid as to fail to realize that).

    IOW: This is not some devious, liability-dodging legal maneuver or strategy. At worst, it's just disposable PR fluff emitted by mealy-mouthed cowards who are trying to avoid alienating their pro-mandate customers by pretending they don't have any choice in the matter because they are supposedly just complying with a court ruling that doesn't even apply to them.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-10-2021, 02:30 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-04-2018, 07:10 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-17-2013, 08:26 AM
  4. Which is the worst Supreme Court Decision?
    By dude58677 in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 03-01-2009, 09:28 PM
  5. California Supreme Court: Good Samaritans can be sued...
    By Brooklyn Red Leg in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-22-2008, 12:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •