Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Children's Health Defense, Inc. v. Rutgers Plaintiffs' Response to Goe Supplemental Authority — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)

Court filing

Plaintiffs' Response to Goe Supplemental Authority — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)

Filed August 4, 2022 in Childrens Health Defense v. Rutgers; one of 33 filings from this case.

Record facts

Filed2022-08-04

No. 3:21-cv-15333-ZNQ-TJB · Doc. 50 · 2022-08-04 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

GOMEZ LLC                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Julio C. Gomez, Esq.
 
     ATTORNEY AT LAW                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                908.789.1080 Tel 
908.789.1081 Fax 
jgomez@gomezllc.com 
1451 COOPER ROAD 
SCOTCH PLAINS, NJ 07076 
August 4, 2022 
 
VIA CM-ECF 
Hon. Zahid N. Quraishi, U.S.D.J. 
United States District Court, District of New Jersey 
Clarkson S. Fisher Building & U.S. Courthouse 
402 East State Street 
Trenton, NJ 08608 
 
Re: 
Children’s Health Defense, Inc. et al. v. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, et al. 
 
Civ. Case No. 21-15333 (United States District Court, District of New Jersey 
 
 
 
Dear Judge Quraishi: 
 
The decision in Goe v. Zucker, __ F.4
th __, No. 21-0537-cv, 2022 WL 3007919 (2d Cir. July 29, 
2022) brought to Your Honor’s attention by Defendants is inapposite.  (Dkt. 49). 
 
The case at bar, unlike the case in Goe v. Zucker, does not challenge the constitutionality of any 
state laws or regulations concerning vaccination.  On the contrary, Plaintiffs allege the Rutgers 
Defendants deviated from the statutory and regulatory framework governing vaccination, especially 
the emergency-use authorization statute, 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb, and acted without legal (moral or 
scientific) authority to deprive students the free exercise of their rights to informed consent and to 
refuse unwanted medical treatment by coercing them to take experimental COVID vaccines in 
which Rutgers has a financial stake while it knew based on the results of the clinical studies 
available at the time that there was no evidence the vaccines they mandated prevented infection or 
transmission.  See First Amended Complaint (FAC) at p. 1, and ¶¶ 1, 4,5, 8, 96-97, 124-138, 140-
141, 147, 148, 158-188, 198-199, 291).  The fact these vaccines do not work and pose serious risks 
has become clearer with the passage of time.  Plaintiffs deserve their day in court to prove that 
Defendants’ claim of protecting the community is mere pretext. 
 
As alleged, Rutgers knew there was no evidence COVID vaccines prevented infection or 
transmission because the vaccine manufacturers and FDA said so (see FAC at p. 1 and ¶ 140), and 
since Rutgers was involved in the clinical trials (FAC ¶¶ 8, 128-138) Rutgers knew the limitations of 
the clinical research.  This case is nothing like Goe v. Zucker, and its holdings should have no 
weight here. 
 
Plaintiffs respectfully renew their request for oral argument (Dkt. 44), or the opportunity to brief 
this or any other issue to aid the Court.  Thank you. 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
/s/ Julio C. Gomez 
 
Julio C. Gomez 
 
Case 3:21-cv-15333-ZNQ-TJB   Document 50   Filed 08/04/22   Page 1 of 1 PageID: 822

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.njd.480171.50.0.pdf
Size
136,496 bytes
SHA-256
d1b29c7f5e66279d248f26926770dba6373134fc074e3d992a02152d8e81b9ba
Our copy
gov.uscourts.njd.480171.50.0.pdf
Original
archive.org
  1. in support of Rutgers’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 39), Isame docket · 2022-08-02
  2. Plaintiffs' Supplemental Authority — CDC Guidance and EO 302 — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgerssame docket · 2022-08-16
  3. Supplemental Authority Letter — Goe v. Children's Health Defense — CHD v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)same docket · 2022-08-02
  4. Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 39), I respectfully submit thesame docket · 2022-08-16
  5. Rutgers' Letter Opposing Supplemental Briefing — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)same docket · 2022-08-18
  6. Letter Order — Doe Plaintiffs Must Disclose Identities — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)same docket · 2022-04-12
  7. Opinion Granting Motion to Dismiss — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)same docket · 2022-09-22
  8. NJ PBA v. Murphy — Slip Opinion (Exhibit to Supplemental Authority) — Children's Health Defense, Inc. v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)same case · 2022-02-14
  9. Order of Dismissal With Prejudice — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)same case · 2022-09-22
  10. Supplemental Authority Letter — NJ PBA v. Murphy — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgerssame case · 2022-02-14
  11. Notice of Appeal to Third Circuit — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)same case · 2022-10-19
  12. Rutgers Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)same case · 2022-01-31
  13. Declaration of Counsel Julio C. Gomez — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J., 2022-01-11)same case · 2022-01-11
  14. Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgerssame case · 2022-01-11
  15. New Jersey Register Exhibit (Dkt. 42-4) — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)same case · 2022-01-11

Part of: Children's Health Defense, Inc. v. Rutgers · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · Other pandemic litigation · Suits against governments and agencies · Briefs and memoranda · 2022 · Court filings

Back to top