TEXAS AG SEEKS TO REVIVE LAWSUIT AGAINST PFIZER, BOURLA IN TEXAS STATE COURTS AND REVERSE PFIZERS MOVE OF THE LAWSUIT TO THE FEDERAL COURTS WHERE IT WAS DISMISSED

TEXAS APPEALS COURT TO DECIDE IF TEXAS CAN GET BACK ITS PFIZER LAWSUIT AS A STATE CASE 

STATE VERSUS FED LEGAL DISTINCTION

THE DAMING EVIDENCE OF KNOWLEDGE AND INTENT FOR BOURLA AND PFIZER EXECS IS IN MY  BAXTER AND FBI CHARGES FROM 2009, THAT IS WHY HE, PFIZER ARE TRYING TO SILENCE ME

A GS NEED TO GO FOR THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT AND ARREST THE EPSTEIN OLIGARCHY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO STOP RETALIATION AGAINST THE AGS!

I  initiated the investigation into Baxter in 2009, the investigation generated records concerning Baxter and the deliberate circumvention of quality controls to contaminate seasonal flu vaccine material with the bird flu to nearly start a global pandemic to profit from it by selling the matching bird flu vaccines.

I also alleged in 2009 the experimental vaccines would produce cytokine storms and be especially dangerous for young people.

My predictions have turned out to be true.

Pfizer s covid jabs have been found to  cause cytokine storms.

They have been be contaminated with SV and other material as part of process 2.

There has been a cover up.

Bourla 's conduct after he was notified about the existence of these invesigations by me demonstrates that he understood the significance of what I had uncovered.

A pharmaceutical company cannot simply contaminate vaccine material by accident.

There are safeguards to prevent just that happening.

The contamination of Pfizer s covid vaccine material  was not an accidental event. It was not an isolated event.

It was the result of a decision to bypass quality control measures for gignatic quantities of vaccine.

It was a decision to create a biological manufacturing Process 2.

The paper trial in the production logs, quality control logs, batch showing that the normal procedures had been set aside, suspended, must all show who ordered  the deviation.

Bourla  knew of the Baxter investigation  from 2009 and  records, and Bourla  subsequently participated in efforts to prevent me  from exposing them because it invited an investigation into how Pfizer s vaccines could be contaminated with SV 40 virus and other material without his knowledge and consent.

Process 2 cannot have happened with his knowledge a consent.

Process 2 is not covered by any contract. Pfizer broke its contracts.

The alleged crimes against Burgermeister therefore become part of the larger documentary case against Bourla, and Gates.

The prosecution against Bourla, Pfizer ultimately depends on reconstructing the Baxter  bird flu, swine flu investigation I started in 2009.

The AGs investigators need not discover an entirely new crime; they' need to reopen a -15year-old trail that  Bourla, Gates  tried to bury.

From media

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to revive his lawsuit against the pharmaceutical company Pfizer for “knowingly misrepresenting” COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, after it was dismissed by a federal district judge.

He argues that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to issue the dismissal. Oral arguments were heard on Tuesday, with the three-judge panel seemingly agreeing with his contention.

....

The appeal was taken up by a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit, consisting of Judges Edith Jones, Leslie Southwick, and Don Willett. Oral arguments were heard on Tuesday.

Paxton’s office argued, in part, that Pfizer should not have been granted immunity. Such immunity would only apply to alleged “claims for loss,” meaning the State would have had to allege injuries for which it seeks compensation.

But the State did not allege injuries. Rather, it is seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties to punish and deter Pfizer for its actions. Paxton’s office emphasized that this is different in kind and purpose.

Pfizer argued that the State’s claims against Pfizer constitute “claims for loss,” as it alleges that by the company withholding information from Texans it exposed them to health risks.

As a separate matter, the three-judge panel is questioning whether the case’s removal to federal court was proper.

Both Paxton’s office and Pfizer agreed that removal is proper, but the court noted that such an agreement does not mean it is the proper jurisdiction. The judges further emphasized their skepticism.

In response, Paxton’s office noted that if the court decided removal was improper, the proper remedy would be to remand the case to state court, thereby reversing Judge Cumming’s federal district court dismissal.

https://texasscorecard.com/federal/ag-paxton-seeks-to-revive-pfizer-lawsuit/