Hey, Measles. Where’d You Go?
H Res 1154 Conflates Vaccine Safety with Q Anon & Conspiracy Theories

Supreme Court Doe v Merck Presents Opportunity to Argue Lawfulness of Mandatory Vaccination

Doe v merck october 2020Below, from attorney Patricia Finn. Suing Merck makes David v Goliath look like child's play. They have legions of lawyers whose job it is to protect shareholders over customers, at any cost. Their pockets are endlessly deep. As the globe races toward mandatory COVID vaccination, wouldn't it be something if our children, those who were injured by their pediatric vaccines, shone a light on the legal process that even those who have shunned our plight for now decades?


The Supreme Court petition linked HERE seeks to challenge the alleged failure of the US Government and Merck, a major vaccine drug company, to disclose the “unavoidably unsafe” nature of childhood vaccines, which allegedly injured plaintiff's son more than twenty years ago. Now grown, Baby Doe must be placed in a group home for proper care, but under New York’s draconian vaccine laws, he must be vaccinated yet again because he is unable to obtain a medical exemption. He is forced to “play roulette” with more “unavoidably unsafe” vaccines. Please help support this case and pray for our success on Baby Doe's behalf, and all others facing unwanted, mandatory vaccinations.

Dear Clients and Supporters,

On October 2, 2020, the law offices of Patricia Finn Attorney, P.C., filed the most important case we have handled in over two decades of fighting to secure your rights of medical freedom. Doe v Merck is a culmination of years of litigation, and the hard work and sacrifice of all the families we have represented in the fight for vaccine choice and safety. We now have an opportunity, for the first time in over 100 years, to argue the lawfulness of mandatory vaccinations that withhold exemptions for children, soldiers, health care workers, and many others, who are refusing forced vaccinations. And this time, we are taking the fight straight to the United States Supreme Court. We need your help. Please consider volunteering and donating if you can.

Paypal at MakeAmericasKidsHealthyAgain@gmail.com for up to $2500;

If you need further information or wish to volunteer for our new campaign “Make America’s Kids Healthy Again,” just send an email to patriciafinnattorney@gmail.com, and we will get back to you on the next step.

I cannot promise an outcome to any of our legal efforts or cases, but so far in just this last year, we have had three impressive wins in important cases bringing us closer and closer to securing your rights to bodily autonomy and personal safety. However, I can and do promise you this: I will do my best to protect your legal rights to refuse vaccinations, as I always have, for over twenty years working on this issue in federal and state courts throughout the United States. I can also promise you that without meaningful financial support we will not be able to continue the fight at the Finn Firm at the level needed to combat pharma interests. Please make a generous donation if you can, and share the good word with others. Thank you for your continued support. God Bless America!


Patricia Finn
58 East Route 59, Suite 4
Nanuet, New York 10954

Tune in Monday 10/26 5PM EST for the Live at 5 Drive

The Good Health Lawyer Radio Hour

WRCR 1700AM NY TALK RADIO or wrcr.com

Hey You Talking To Me?

Call in #845.429.1700



The reason these cases have to be so convoluted is because the 1986 Vaccine law is unconstitutional. It favors a unique PRIVATELY PRODUCED product...."taxable vaccine." The Federal law has legally defined this product. That is the problem. A state cannot write a law about a unique Federal product because it has no legal jurisdiction to use the name of that product, "taxable vaccine", in a STATE law. Any other word a state may use, IS NOT a "taxable vaccine". This is why Massachusetts vs. Jacobsen is DEFUNCT. In 1906, the ONLY legal definition for "vaccine" was "cow pox." Cow pox virus was used to make small pox vaccine. The current FEDERAL product, "taxable vaccine" has replaced previous definitions by law, and the states ONLY use a Federal "taxable vaccine." This illustrates why both Jacobsen and 1986 Vaccine law are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. No one can be forced vaccinated under Constitutional law. The state "police power" is a bogus argument. To justify that, the "vaccine" would need a legal definition which guaranteed safety and efficacy to ALL citizens, which it does not. This legal definition would need to be determined by the STATE, not the Federal government. You can't have one law for two legal jurisdictions.


By the way can it be hidden from the judges that the vaccine did hurt baby Doe so she has to go to a group home? If so surely this is a win; if there is any human heart that judges it?

And who allowed this to happen with a "she has to have a vaccine" in the first place? Hearts are black here.


Yes RBG actually was on our side.


Well I hope the new woman on the court will do as well as the woman we lost.

I think she will since she said she always thought of a law and how it would affect her children.
She has a down syndrome child and they are known not to do vaccines well at all. It makes them worse.

I hope this time it is not a 6:2 decision this time around .

Roberts is such a disappointment. Well they all except the two women have been.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)