by Sharon Rondeau

(Jul. 6, 2022) – As The Post & Email reported earlier, a hearing is taking place beginning at 10:00 a.m. MDT/12:00 p.m. EDT in the case of Griner v. Biden et al, which challenges the mandate on healthcare workers imposed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

The Post & Email clicked the available link to Zoom on the court docket and found no admission restrictions.

As provided by reader Neil Turner in a morning editorial, Dr. David Martin, Ph.D., provided an interview to USA Watchdog‘s Greg Hunter last week explaining the motivation behind the suit, which his company, M-CAM, has supported.

The hearing convened a few minutes early, during which Judge Dale A. Kimball asked if “all the lawyers” were appearing via Zoom.

Kimball officially launched the proceeding at 11:58 a.m. EDT.

A Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Preliminary Injunction are to be heard, Kimball said. He asked the defendants’ attorney, Joel McElvain, to argue why the case should be dismissed and Atty. George Wentz for the plaintiff to then provide his argument. Each side has 45 minutes, Kimball instructed.

McElvain, who joined by phone due to technical difficulties, argued that the COVID-19 vaccinations prevent the spread of the virus, a claim CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky appeared to contradict last August.

McElvain claimed the vaccines protect “vulnerable” people from “the deadliest disease in American history.”

McElvain concluded his argument at 12:26, at which time Kimball addressed Wentz, asking him how he would “get around” Biden v. Missouri, which was decided in favor of the administration’s authority to maintain the CMS COVID-19 mandate.

As in his brief, Wentz argued that the injectable products are “not a vaccine” by definition. When Kimball asked if that were covered by Biden v. Missouri, Wentz said the argument that the products are “not a vaccine” was not raised.

“It was never argued,” Wentz said at 12:29. “They do have that right,” he said of the government’s ability to impose the rule. His argument, Wentz said, is “constitutional” and has been “rewritten” by the defendants.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Comment reply to Nikita’s_UN_Shoe from Sharon Rondeau:
    Thursday, July 7, 2022 at 12:50 PM
    Sharon Rondeau says: “When you use the same IP number but different names, are you the same person?”

    Not sure why this comment was directed to me. But, I have no control on the use of my IP number; that, I believe, is inherent with the computer and my Internet service provider. And, I do not use different names when I comment. If I use other than my comment board name, Nikita’s_UN_Shoe, I will identify myself as Everett P. Rein without shame or covertness.

      1. Ten thumbs up for replying and for being fair with all commenters, especially those with wayward Constitutional tendencies, on this great website.

    1. The government’s motion dismiss contained ten exhibits, which, like the CDC director, explained that these vaccines help reduce transmission and lessen the number of cases involving severe illness and death.

      Lawyers during argument routinely summarize the evidence that has been presented.

      1. One of the most nagging questions about the COVID-19 pandemic for public health authorities, policymakers and the public was whether the vaccines stop transmission.

        New Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show that in breakthrough cases of the highly transmissible delta variant, the answer is no.

        The newly released report showing that vaccinated people can still be superspreaders drove the recent decision by the CDC to once again recommend masks for vaccinated people indoors where case counts are high or substantial.

        Did the defense lawyer present this as evidence? Thought so….

        1. The government’s exhibits do show vaccines help reduce transmission.

          That year old article actually is consistent with the government’s evidence and argument.