Courts rule against, Joshua Nagle, the father who sought to protect his two daughters from being forced to take the Covid-19 vaccine.

RI Supreme Court Rules Against Joshua Nagle: Will Force Daughters to Take Banned Covid-19 Vaccine

On Friday, the Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled against, Joshua Nagle, the defendant father who was seeking to protect his two young daughters from being forced to take the Covid-19 vaccine regimen, despite the fact that the original monovalent vaccines are no longer authorized by the FDA for use in the United States.

The ruling was not a surprise following the clearly biased actions, questions, and statements posed by the Judges during April oral arguments in front of the full 5-member court.

As many courtroom observers described (including two guests on a recent In The Dugout with Mike Stenhouse podcast; go to the 35:00 mark here), Rhode Island’s “Supremes” were not only woefully uninformed about the inconvenient medical truths revealed over the past year about the lack of effectiveness of the vaccine and its potential dangers to young people, but the state Supreme Court actually refused to accept an “amicus brief” that was co-signed by over six dozen medical professionals from across America that provided detailed scientific research about why children should not receive the shot.

Sadly, yet consistent with virtually every other case in state after state, the Courts refused to rule against the government’s indiscriminate vaccine-for-all narrative, despite overwhelming medical evidence and constitutional arguments to the contrary.

According to the court watching organization, Justia, “The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the family court in favor of Mother and permitting Mother to vaccinate the parties’ two minor children for COVID-19 consistent with the recommendation of the children’s pediatrician, holding that there was no error.

In 2020, the family court entered a final judgment of divorce between the parties setting forth provisions governing the children’s custody and visitation, including the provision that “[n]either party shall unreasonably withhold his or her consent to medical treatment for the children or the administration of medication recommendation by the pediatrician of the children.” In 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief after final judgment seeking the court’s permission to vaccinate the children for COVID-19, consistent with the pediatrician’s recommendation. The trial justice allowed the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice’s factual findings did not overlook or misconceive any aspect of the matter, nor were they otherwise clearly wrong.”

The defendant, Josh Nagle, may have only one legal argument remaining – to go back to the Family Court and seek modification to its original ruling, now supported by the highest court in the Ocean State … but now armed with the more recent FDA guidelines that effectively ended the administration of the original vaccines series.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in The Ocean State Current, including text, graphics, images, and information are solely those of the authors. They do not purport to reflect the views and opinions of The Current, the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity, or its members or staff. The Current cannot be held responsible for information posted or provided by third-party sources. Readers are encouraged to fact check any information on this web site with other sources.

  • No products in the cart.