Lawyer Benjamin J. Horwich "Proud" of Removing Your Right To Sue Vaccine Makers Who Kill Your Children

Hey kids... wanna read something super gross?

This is the evil PR murder goo that slimed out of gates of hell to praise the tool of the Devil that "won" Wyeth's case in SCOTUS so that no vaccine injured family could ever access their 7th Amendment right to sue when a vaccine kills or disables their child.

Portfolio Media. Inc. | 111 West 19th Street, 5th Floor | New York, NY 10011 | www.law360.com

Rising Star: Munger Tolles’ Benjamin Horwich

Law360, Los Angeles (April 11, 2016, 4:00 PM ET) -- Benjamin J. Horwich’s career achievements include helping convince the U.S. Supreme Court to effectively prevent drug companies from exiting the vaccine market, a critical matter of public policy, earning the Munger Tolles & Olson LLP partner a spot on Law360’s list of the top six appellate attorneys under age 40.

Horwich, who recently turned 39, was named a partner in January, just 17 months after he joined the firm. He attributes part of his success as a Rising Star to being exposed to an enormous number of different legal issues through his time as Assistant to the Solicitor General in the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as clerkships in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Third Circuit and the Northern District of California.

“As an appellate lawyer, there is really no substitute for having a broad base of areas of the law where you have some familiarity,” Horwich said. “Our stock in trade is talking to generalist judges who tend not to have extremely deep knowledge of any single subject matter but rather a desire to fit the pieces of the law together in a harmonious way. Coming to an appellate court with that common ground is really valuable.”

During his more than five years with the U.S. Solicitor General, Horwich was able to argue 10 cases before the nation’s highest court. One of the most memorable and rewarding cases, he said, was Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, a 2011 ruling that held the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 preempts design-defect tort claims against vaccine manufacturers.

Horwich, who argued on behalf of the federal government as a friend of the  court siding with the drugmakers, said it was important because it helped prevent pharmaceutical companies from exiting the less than lucrative vaccine market due to tort liability.

“The law stands as one of the most ingenious and successful pieces of tort reform ever,” Horwich said.  “I’m certainly proud of being a part of delivering on the promise that Congress sought out to make in the 1980s and certainly take only the smallest amount of credit.”

Horwich said he uses that experience and many others, as well as his time clerking for Justices Samuel A. Alito and Sandra Day O’Connor, to help him in his practice. His ability to “marry the understanding of the local courts with the long view of what a case looks like if it’s impacted by the Supreme Court” brings value to his firm’s clients, he said.

In advising Swedish telecom equipment maker Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson Inc. in its patent licensing dispute with tech giant Apple Inc., one of the biggest mobile tech cases of the past year, Horwich said they were preparing to address the unresolved issue of how courts will assess damages for standard essential patents on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory, or FRAND, terms.

“That’s an issue at the forefront of the intersection of IP and antitrust law,” Horwich said.  While the issue wasn’t decided due to a global settlement reached between the parties in December, Horwich said his appellate experience provides him with a key long-term outlook at the trial level.

“Understanding how precedent develops in appellate court gives you an advantage at trial court, where you’re building that record,” he said. “Bringing that long-term perspective is valuable to a client who is interested in the sound development of the law that governs its business activity.”

One piece of advice that he offers young lawyers looking to advance their careers is to distinguish yourself from other attorneys.

“The background I have developed is something distinctive,” Horwich said. “Being able to explain what you as an attorney can offer that is distinctive is the path to success, because it puts yourself in the best position to tell clients, ‘I’m the right person for this job.’”

--Editing by Emily Kokoll.

All Content © 2003-2016, Portfolio Media, Inc.

Super, super gross.

He is "PROUD" to have left hundreds of thousands of people without the right to walk into a courtroom and tell their story to a jury, or compel anyone in the entire $30B per year industry to testify under oath on product safety... or even hand over one single document.

Totally disgusting.

He believes that gutting the 7th amendment to protect a business that kills babies by chemical poisoning, even when they are still in the safety of their mother's womb is "ingenious."  And of course that the massive violation of the Bill of Rights to make open fraud that has resulted tricking parents into destroying the health of their own precious children, decimating more than one generation of children, is a "success."

Well, to be fair, he is not wrong on that last point.  NCVIA and VICP are the most successful frauds in US history.  No one has ever managed the consiquence free murder and maiming of children for profit like the post 1986 US National Immunization Program.

"But, Ginger," you may say, "Why attack him personally... he is just a lawyer doing his job, right?"

Nope.  He "takes only the smallest amount of credit" for my lack of ability to hold Sanofi responsible for lying about the safety of the vaccine that gave my son brain damage, and prevent any other children from suffering what my son did, but he has taken credit none the less.  So...

Meet Ben Horwich.  The smiling face of evil.  At your service for the right price.  Not even the slaughter of innnocent babies will stop him from getting you the money and power you want.

HIRE HIM TODAY!

Meet Frank DeStefano

So today I heard the one millionth politician say another version of, "The benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks," and got my panties in a huge bunch, repeatedly hammering "DATA PLEASE!!!" into my poor keyboard. And then the politician sitting next to her became the one quintillionth to say a version of, "I just refuse to believe that all the public health professionals and scientists and doctors and nurses in all the land everywhere in perpetuity would be in a conspiracy to....,"and it is just driving me crazy.

So I took a deep breath and I am writing this to respond to those who repeat what they have been told with out critical thought. I will not name them, as they have agreed to meet with and listen to some of our moms (pray that normal reason guides the conversation), but I am writing this response to them as a primer to people who are stuck in the "that conspiracy is not possible" paradigm.

OK... great point. Conspiracies fall apart faster the larger they get, and if all people involved in vaccination were part of a conspiracy, it would have burned itself out by now.

But can you believe a group of people I can count on my fingers might decide to tell big giant lies to keep themselves from getting in trouble? How about just ONE GUY? Would one guy try to get away with it, if for example, he had allowed bad policy, corporate influence, arrogance and flat out laziness to create THE most rampant epidemic of neurological damage in American history? Would that one guy try to lie and cover it up?

And do you believe that a top down profession like medicine, would simply believe that ONE GUY, if he was supposed to be the NATIONAL EXPERT entrusted with issuing stances on such matters that all those in medicine had to carry out, or be shoved out of the profession?

Let's meet Frank DeStefano. 

Frank DeStefano, MD, MPH, FACPM is a medical epidemiologist and researcher at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where he is director of the Immunization Safety Office.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_DeStefano

Frank is in charge of telling everyone in the country whether or not vaccines are linked to autism.

Here is what Frank tells us, and the whole wide world, on this critical matter on vaccine safety:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html

"Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism"

"There is no link between vaccines and autism."

"Vaccine ingredients do not cause autism."

Simple, straightforward, emphatic statements.

But wait... here is what Frank told Sharyl Attkisson about that very same issue:

https://sharylattkisson.com/2015/01/25/cdc-possibility-that-vaccines-rarely-trigger-autism/

"He acknowledged the prospect that vaccines might rarely trigger autism."

“I guess, that, that is a possibility,” said DeStefano. “It’s hard to predict who those children might be, but certainly, individual cases can be studied to look at those possibilities.”

That is NOT AT ALL even remotely like what he said in is official position that ALL MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IN THE COUNTRY HAVE TO RELY ON.

So why would Frank say that it is a possibility that vaccines can cause autism?

Because Frank already KNOWS that vaccines can cause autism. He found out in 1999 the first time he looked into it.

You see, Frank screwed up.

In 1988, when CDC began to jack up the number of vaccines from 23 given in the 70s and 80s, to the 70ish doses given now, they created the largest epidemic of life long neurological damage in US history. The autism rate went from 1 in 10,000ish to now 1 in 68ish (but probably really 1 in 36ish.  we can't get CDC to give us a straight answer.)

This started becoming apparent at the end of the 1990s, when one woman at the CDC issued a memo that said, "Hey guys... do you realize we have delivered truck loads of mercury into babies by giving them 8 vaccines at a time now?" Well clearly it was not a problem, because vaccines are the best thing ever and can't hurt anyone, but Frank's job was to look at that stuff, so he kinda had to look into it.

And that is when The Frank Squad found out that Team CDC was delivering 250 times the daily limit of mercury to babies, and babies getting the most mercury in their vaccines had a 600% higher chance of getting autism than babies getting no mercury.

Frank had a choice. Admit to what he had done, or lie.

Frank decided to lie.

He decided NOT to publish what he found, instead having his squad spend four years trying to unfind what they found. They couldn't. So they added on some garbage, published it, called it a "neutral study" and then a dude wrote a New York Times best selling book on the fraud. Which Frank, and everyone else at CDC, ignored.

But they had to ignore it, because they had charted their course and could not turn back now!  Once you commit the first fraud, you have to keep on frauding or you are super busted.

Plus they had already published their second fraud. Because they had also looked into the idea that MMR was linked to autism, and found that IT WAS. In two different groups. One of the black males given the MMR under age 3. Of course they didn't publish that either, but literally held meetings with a garbage can in the room to throw out cases that they had to get rid of to make the research to fit the narrative.

Of course parents of MMR injured kids knew the paper was BS, but no one could prove it for 10 years, when one of Frank's boys admitted to Congress that they found the links and covered them up.

http://canaryparty.org/commentary/timeline-of-events-in-the-william-thompson-cdcwhistleblower-scandal/

Which is why Frank FINALLY had to admit to Attkisson that it was in the realm possibility that vaccines can cause autism.

But he never bothered changing the CDC page emphatically claiming that vaccines don't cause autism.


Now for above referenced politicians, there is a LOT MORE ON ALL THIS. But I am going to stop here because it only gets more complicated.  But I have laid out so basics.  Do you see how, even from a 30,000 foot level, there is an obvious problem??

I ask you to consider this....

Yeah...  of course.... you can't keep a conspiracy quiet when millions are involved.

But when the leader of an organization, given total power over what US vaccine safety policy is, decides to lie and commit fraud, and everyone inside his organization has to live by his pronouncements, and in the medical profession has to work according to CDC pronouncements, you see how a very small conspiracy can come to rule the medical profession?

They become participants in the fraud, either knowing or unknowing... either willing or unwilling... but they HAVE to participate in the fraud in order to keep their jobs.  They have to tow the line, (so it is best no to look to closely at the issue, because what if parents are right?)

Now factor in the legal liability protection that the 30 Billion dollar vaccine industry has for vaccine induced autism, and every other adverse vaccine reaction, and the number of very smooth lobbyists that the 30 Billion dollar per year vaccine industry has to lie to politicians on a daily basis, and you see how the medical professionals might be believing a lie...

...without being involved in any conspiracy what so ever?

I appreciate you agreeing to meet with moms. If you could also invite Frank DeStefano to attend, so we can ask him direct questions on his work and conflicting public stances, it may clarify what is really happening in this very controversial issue very quickly.

Also, if you could invite a judge to swear him in, under oath, I think you will come to understand our complaints about the veracity and trustworthiness of vaccine safety claims with crystal clarity.

Bring a stenographer and a video camera.

This is not a vast conspiracy.  It is a small one, reinforced by those who need to believe it to keep their jobs, and those who refuse to listen to parents and investigate the charges that they make.

And every time you parrot "I can't believe that all doctors would participate in a conspiracy to cover up vaccine damage."  Pretend you just said, "I can't believe that all catholics would participate in a conspiracy to cover up child molestation."

Because the reason that both have persisted decade after decade, is because you and people like you "refused" to take reports of injured children seriously.

Usually because it is such a monstrous thought that no one wants to entertain the possibility that it could be true.

So see, I don't really have a problem with you.  I have a problem with Frank.  And with those who helped and protected Frank knowing full well Frank was committing one of the most massive frauds in medical history.

But I can't get to Frank.  Frank does not talk to people like me.  Frank has security guards and laws that prevent me from forcing Frank to answer questions under oath.

And because you, unknowingly are running interference for Frank by dismissing Frank's massive fraud when parents like me report it to you, WE (you and I) end up having a problem.

But there is a line for everyone in this discussion, when dealing with super loud moms like me, that when crossed turns sincere ignorance on the fraud into willful ignorance.  Have you crossed that line yet?  If you are still willing to listen to moms, then probably not.  Be careful of crossing it.

Finally.... seriously... why are you letting Frank use you as a human shield?  Respectfully... you guys don't actually know what you are talking about on vaccine safety, and you are not actually responsible for the false claims Frank DeStefano Inc. are spitting out.  You didn't do the research.  You have not even read the research, much less understood the criticisms of it.  Why don't you just step out of the way and make FRANK answer for the fraud that he has perpetrated on the American public, and the world.

Stop protecting Frank DeStefano.  It is not your job.