Israeli rabbi Chananya Weissman's 31 reasons why he is not getting a Covid vaccine

The following list of  31 reasons he won’t take the Covid vaccine was written by Israeli rabbi Chananya Weissman.  I got it from LewRockwell.com

1.		It’s not a vaccine. A vaccine by definition provides immunity to a disease. This does not provide immunity to anything. In a best-case scenario, it merely reduces the chance of getting a severe case of a virus if one catches it. Hence, it is a medical treatment, not a vaccine. I do not want to take a medical treatment for an illness I do not have.
2.		The drug companies, politicians, medical establishment, and media have joined forces to universally refer to this as a vaccine when it is not one, with the intention of manipulating people into feeling safer about undergoing a medical treatment. Because they are being deceitful, I do not trust them, and want nothing to do with their medical treatment.
3.		The presumed benefits of this medical treatment are minimal and would not last long in any case. The establishment acknowledges this, and is already talking about additional shots and ever-increasing numbers of new “vaccines” that would be required on a regular basis. I refuse to turn myself into a chronic patient who receives injections of new pharmaceutical products on a regular basis simply to reduce my chances of getting a severe case of a virus that these injections do not even prevent.
4.		I can reduce my chances of getting a severe case of a virus by strengthening my immune system naturally. In the event I catch a virus, there are vitamins and well-established drugs that have had wonderful results in warding off the illness, without the risks and unknowns of this medical treatment.
5.		The establishment insists that this medical treatment is safe. They cannot possibly know this because the long-term effects are entirely unknown, and will not be known for many years. They may speculate that it is safe, but it is disingenuous for them to make such a claim that cannot possibly be known. Because they are being disingenuous, I do not trust them, and I want no part of their treatment.
6.		The drug companies have zero liability if anything goes wrong, and cannot be sued. Same for the politicians who are pushing this treatment. I will not inject myself with a new, experimental medical device when the people behind it accept no liability or responsibility if something goes wrong. I will not risk my health and my life when they refuse to risk anything.
7.		Israel’s Prime Minister has openly admitted that the Israeli people are the world’s laboratory for this experimental treatment. I am not interested in being a guinea pig or donating my body to science.
8.		Israel agreed to share medical data of its citizens with a foreign drug company as a fundamental part of their agreement to receive this treatment. I never consented for my personal medical data to be shared with any such entity, nor was I even asked. I will not contribute to this sleazy enterprise.
9.		The executives and board members at Pfizer are on record that they have not taken their own treatment, despite all the fanfare and assurances. They are claiming that they would consider it unfair to “cut the line”. This is a preposterous excuse, and it takes an unbelievable amount of chutzpah to even say such a thing. Such a “line” is a figment of their own imagination; if they hogged a couple of injections for themselves no one would cry foul. In addition, billionaires with private jets and private islands are not known for waiting in line until hundreds of millions of peasants all over the world go first to receive anything these billionaires want for themselves.
10.		The establishment media have accepted this preposterous excuse without question or concern. Moreover, they laud Pfizer’s executives for their supposed self-sacrifice in not taking their own experimental treatment until we go first. Since they consider us such fools, I do not trust them, and do not want their new treatment. They can have my place in line. I’ll go to the very back of the line.
11.		Three facts that must be put together: Bill Gates is touting these vaccines as essential to the survival of the human race. Bill Gates believes the world has too many people and needs to be “depopulated”. Bill Gates, perhaps the richest man in the world, has also not been injected. No rush. Uh, no. I’ll pass on any medical treatments he wants me to take.
12.		The establishment has been entirely one-sided in celebrating this treatment. The politicians and media are urging people to take it as both a moral and civic duty. The benefits of the treatment are being greatly exaggerated, the risks are being ignored, and the unknowns are being brushed aside. Because they are being deceitful and manipulative, I will not gamble my personal wellbeing on their integrity.
13.		There is an intense propaganda campaign for people to take this treatment. Politicians and celebrities are taking selfies of themselves getting injected (perhaps in some cases pretending to get injected), the media is hyping this as the coolest, smartest, most happy and fun thing to do. It is the most widespread marketing campaign in history. This is not at all appropriate for any medical treatment, let alone a brand new one, and it makes me recoil.
14.		The masses are following in tow, posting pictures of themselves getting injected with a drug, feeding the mass peer pressure to do the same. There is something very alarming and sick about this, and I want no part of it. I never took drugs just because “everyone’s doing it” and it’s cool. I’m certainly not going to start now.

2. 15.		Those who raise concerns about this medical treatment are being bullied, slandered, mocked, censored, ostracized, threatened, and fired from their jobs. This includes medical professionals who have science-based concerns about the drug and caregivers who have witnessed people under their charge suffering horrible reactions and death shortly after being injected. When the establishment is purging good people who risk everything simply to raise concerns about a new medical treatment — even if they don’t outright oppose it — I will trust these brave people over the establishment every time. I cannot think of a single similar case in history when truth and morality turned out to be on the side of the establishment.
   16.		This is the greatest medical experiment in the history of the human race.
   17.		It is purposely not being portrayed as the greatest medical experiment in the history of the human race, and the fact that it is a medical experiment at all is being severely downplayed.
   18.		Were they up front with the masses, very few would agree to participate in such an experiment. Manipulating the masses to participate in a medical experiment under false pretenses violates the foundations of medical ethics and democratic law. I will not allow unethical people who engage in such conduct to inject me with anything.
   19.		The medical establishment is not informing people about any of this. They have become marketing agents for an experimental drug, serving huge companies and politicians who have made deals with them. This is a direct conflict with their mandate to concern themselves exclusively with the wellbeing of the people under their care. Since the medical establishment has become corrupted, and has become nothing more than a corporate and political tool, I do not trust the experimental drug they want so badly to inject me with.
   20.		We are being pressured in various ways to get injected, which violates medical ethics and the foundations of democratic society. The best way to get me not to do something is to pressure me to do it.
   21.		The government has sealed their protocol related to the virus and treatments for THIRTY YEARS. This is information that the public has a right to know, and the government has a responsibility to share. What are they covering up? Do they really expect me to believe that everything is kosher about all this, and that they are concerned first and foremost with my health? The last time they did this was with the Yemenite Children Affair. If you’re not familiar with it, look it up. Now they’re pulling the same shtick. They didn’t fool me the first time, and they’re definitely not fooling me now.
   22.		The government can share our personal medical data with foreign corporations, but they won’t share their own protocol on the matter with us? I’m out.
   23.		The establishment has recruited doctors, rabbis, the media, and the masses to harangue people who don’t want to get injected with a new drug. We are being called the worst sort of names. We are being told that we believe in crazy conspiracies, that we are against science, that we are selfish, that we are murderers, that we don’t care about the elderly, that it’s our fault that the government continues to impose draconian restrictions on the public. It’s all because we don’t want to get injected with an experimental treatment, no questions asked. We are even being told that we have a religious obligation to do this, and that we are grave sinners if we do not. They say that if we do not agree to get injected, we should be forced to stay inside our homes forever and be ostracized from public life. This is horrific, disgusting, a perversion of common sense, morality, and the Torah. It makes me recoil, and only further cements my distrust of these people and my opposition to taking their experimental drug. How dare they?
   24.		I know of many people who got injected, but none of them studied the science in depth, carefully weighed the potential benefits against the risks, compared this option to other alternatives, was truly informed, and decided this medical treatment was the best option for them. On the contrary, they got injected because of the hype, the propaganda, the pressure, the fear, blind trust in what “the majority of experts” supposedly believed (assuming THEY all studied everything in depth and were completely objective, which is highly dubious), blind trust in what certain influential rabbis urged them to do (ditto the above), or hysterical fear that the only option was getting injected or getting seriously ill from the virus. When I see mass hysteria and cult-like behavior surrounding a medical treatment, I will be extremely suspicious and avoid it.
   25.		The drug companies have a long and glorious history of causing mass carnage with wonder drugs they thrust on unsuspecting populations, even after serious problems had already become known. Instead of pressing the pause button and halting the marketing of these drugs until these issues could be properly investigated, the drug companies did everything in their power to suppress the information and keep pushing their products. When companies and people have demonstrated such gross lack of concern for human life, I will not trust them when they hype a new wonder drug. This isn’t our first rodeo.
   26.		Indeed, the horror stories are already coming in at warp speed, but the politicians are not the least bit concerned, the medical establishment is brushing them aside as unrelated or negligible, the media is ignoring it, the drug companies are steaming ahead at full speed, and those who raise a red flag continue to be bullied, censored, and punished. Clearly my life and my wellbeing are not their primary concern. I will not be their next guinea pig in their laboratory. I will not risk being the next “coincidence”.
   27.		Although many people have died shortly after getting injected — including perfectly healthy young people — we are not allowed to imply that the injection had anything to do with it. Somehow this is anti-science and will cause more people to die. I believe that denying any possible link, abusing people who speculate that there might be a link, and demonstrating not the slightest curiosity to even explore if there might be a link is what is anti-science and could very well cause more people to die. These same people believe I am obligated to get injected as well. No freaking thanks.
   28.		I am repulsed by the religious, cult-like worship of a pharmaceutical product, and will not participate in this ritual.
   29.		My “healthcare” provider keeps badgering me to get injected, yet they have provided me no information on this treatment or any possible alternatives. Everything I know I learned from others outside the establishment. Informed consent has become conformed consent. I decline.
   30.		I see all the lies, corruption, propaganda, manipulation, censorship, bullying, violation of medical ethics, lack of integrity in the scientific process, suppression of inconvenient adverse reactions, dismissal of legitimate concerns, hysteria, cult-like behavior, ignorance, closed-mindedness, fear, medical and political tyranny, concealment of protocols, lack of true concern for human life, lack of respect for basic human rights and freedoms, perversion of the Torah and common sense, demonization of good people, the greatest medical experiment of all time being conducted by greedy, untrustworthy, godless people, the lack of liability for those who demand I risk everything… I see all this and I have decided they can all have my place in line. I will put my trust in God. I will use the mind He blessed me with and trust my natural instincts. Which leads to the final reason which sums up why I will not get “vaccinated.”
   31.		The whole thing stinks.

This originally appeared on Gates of Vienna.

Pfizers demands future indemnity from all lawsuits: asks for sovereign funds, embassy buildings and even military bases as collateral for supplying vaccines!/ WioNews

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zoSSHx9QtA

Perhaps in response to this very interesting news report on Pfizer's fallout with Brazil and Argentina, today's NY Times did a hit piece on Brazil's "painfully slow" rollout of its Covid vaccination campaign.  And complained about Bolsonaro spending money on "unproven drug treatments" like hydroxychloroquine.  Can you imagine, the NYT chortles derisively, that Bolsonaro refused Pfizer's offer simply because Pfizer refused to take responsibility for side effects?

J and J's vaccine, actually manufactured by the anthrax vaccine mfr, gets green light from FDA advisors

Yesterday, Feb 26, the FDA's vaccine advisory committee (VRBPAC) met to give its assent to the third Covid vaccine candidate applying for an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). And I spent another day listening in. FDA is expected to authorize use of the vaccine today.

This one requires only one dose.  For now.  The company is doing a clinical trial of two doses and they could be recommended in future. The VRBPAC committee comments were lackluster.  The members had little to go on.  There is no adenovirus vaccine in civilian use in the US, just as there were no mRNA vaccines.  The committee members simply don't know what they have to watch out for.  One admitted it, and asked if FDA would assist and suggest what types of issues the newly licensed Ebola adenovirus vaccine or the military adenovirus vaccine had faced.  FDA responded with stony silence. Clearly this "advisory" meeting was only needed for its rubber stamp.

Most of the sponsor's (Johnson and Johnson) presenters were from the Janssen division, based in Belgium. Many of the FDA's presenters were non-native English speakers. The combination of an audio transmission that kept dropping out, and inability to catch many of the words made it a challenge to fully grasp the presentations. Was this intended?

FDA has refused to inspect the Covid vaccine manufacturing plants before they are "authorized" under EUA.  I suspect FDA administrators were directed not to slow the warp speed down.  

FDA will have to inspect the factories by law before Covid vaccines are fully licensed, but it seems that the game plan is to get the country vaccinated before adequate data become available and licensure can take place.

The CDC advisory committee has an emergency meeting scheduled for this Sunday and Monday (Feb 28 and March 1), presumably to give their blessing to the vaccine and recommend which demographics will get it first. 

While Johnson and Johnson's Janssen division designed and tested this new adenovirus vectored spike protein vaccine, the vaccine is actually being produced in a factory newly taken out of mothballs, with hundreds of new employees, that has never before produced a vaccine for mass use.  It is owned by Emergent BioSolutions, a company notorious for poisoning soldiers with its anthrax vaccine, which has failed multiple anthrax vaccine inspections.  On Emergent BioSolutions' board is Kathryn Zoon, a former head of FDA's Center for Biologics, which regulates vaccines.

This factory's vaccine may not be exactly the same vaccine that about 20,000 subjects in the clinical trial have received. Usually vaccines for clinical trials are made in a pilot plant under stringent conditions.  

Four million doses of the vaccine are ready to go out the door, with 100 million more promised through June. None of the committee members thought to ask FDA anything about the manufacturing arrangement.

Does the vaccine work?  The vaccine is said to be 66% effective against moderate to severe disease in the trials, and 100% protective against death.  In the clinical trials, having a headache and a cough was enough to put subjects in the "moderate to severe" category.  Like the two mRNA vaccines, the vaccine sponsors apparently did not see fit to test whether their vaccines block infection and transmission in humans. This is the fault of the FDA, which sets the standard for the data needed to obtain an EUA.

Does it work against the South African strain?  Reportedly almost as well as against the standard strain, but J and J is taking no chances.  It is working on a new vaccine to combat newer variants, and Marion Gruber of FDA promised the committee yesterday that newer versions can zoom past FDA regulators with just a modicum of data.

Is it safe?  What was the placebo?  After a discussion, J and J's lead corrected himself and said it was simply saline.  The reported adverse events were practically identical between the saline placebo and the vaccine.  Only hives, ringing in the ears (which eventually resolved) and a small number of blood clots were considered possible vaccine side effects.  I have a hard time believing saline caused all those local (and systemic) effects. Only a subset of the subjects in the trials were evaluated for side effects.  Why was that?  

I can't tell if this vaccine is safe and I doubt anyone else can, either. Nor do I want to be injected with something manufactured by the anthrax vaccine manufacturer, famed for injuring thousands of soldiers twenty years ago, while making 300% profit margins.

Americans either love or hate the Covid vaccines.  The term vaccine seems to give them a luster they probably don't deserve.  How many Americans understand they are all experimental, unlicensed products, only permitted for use under an "Emergency Use Authorization" rule that require a minimum standard of evidence?  The law simply says that in order to receive an authorization, 

"the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat such disease or condition, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product, taking into consideration the material threat posed by the agent or agents identified in a declaration under subsection (b)(1)(D), if applicable" 

So, the more its sponsor knows about adverse effects, the more trouble the vaccine is likely to have getting its EUA.  Accordingly, it is better for the adverse effects to be as unknown as possible.

Adenoviruses are double-stranded DNA viruses.  So instead of mRNA, DNA coding for the spike protein has been inserted into an adenovirus.  The virus will enter human cells and its DNA will enter the cell nucleus, which will then produce mRNA, and just like with the mRNA vaccines, our own cells will make spike proteins.  For how long?  

Subjects vaccinated with this vaccine developed increasing immunity over a prolonged period, suggesting that spike protein might be made for a long period of time. We don't know for how long, nor how much is too much.  But there are definite concerns about how spike proteins can potentially harm us, and how they may prime us for autoimmune reactions to either a Covid infection or to later doses of vaccine.

Are we guinea pigs?  The EUA legislation specifies that recipients must be given considerably more information than is provided with other vaccines. I have included the language below.  Still, I wonder how many recipients understand that they are part of a vast experiment, with the potential to cause very serious consequences?

(ii)Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed—

(I)

that the Secretary [of HHS] has authorized the emergency use of the product;

(II)

of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and

(III)

of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.

UPDATE Feb 27:  Yes, FDA has authorized this vaccine and President Biden says the USG will pull out all the stops to manufacture as much as possible.

NY Times tries to scare us on new mutations while cases drop drastically

The NY Times would have us believe New York has a new, dangerous mutation.  It has been there since November and has been found in 4 boroughs and Westchester. The vaccines may not work as well against this mutation:

"A New Coronavirus Variant Is Spreading in New York, Researchers Report

The variant contains a mutation thought to help the virus dodge the immune system, scientists said."

"...several studies have now shown that variants containing the E484K mutation are less susceptible to the vaccines than was the original form of the virus. The mutation interferes with the activity of a class of antibodies that nearly everyone makes, Dr. Nussenzweig said.

“People who have recovered from the coronavirus or who have been vaccinated are very likely to be able to fight this variant off, there’s no doubt about that,” he said. But “they may get a little bit sick from it.”'

Be afraid, be very afraid. 

Until you actually look at the statistics to find that despite whatever mutations the experts can find, things in New York state are going extremely well regarding Covid, according to data assembled by the CovidTracking Project, below.  Despite all the mutations that may be circulating, just look:  cases, hospitalizations and deaths are rapidly dropping.  Ignore the hype.

Simple, cheap supplements and drugs that are more effective in clinical trials than vaccines for Covid-19

Please go to Dr. Zev Zelenko's website for simple protocols that can save your life from Covid, or at least reduce the severity of the disease.

https://www.vladimirzelenkomd.com/so/d9NVPLNOO

Drug used to treat lice and scabies (Ivermectin) could cut Covid deaths by up to 75%, research suggests/ Daily Mail

 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9297449/Drug-used-treat-lice-scabies-drug-cut-Covid-deaths-75-research-suggests.html

A cheap and safe drug widely used against parasites cuts Covid infections, hospitalisations and deaths by about 75 per cent, a study shows.

More than 30 trials across the world found that ivermectin causes ‘repeated, consistent, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes’ at all stages of the disease.

The peer-reviewed study, to be published in the US journal Frontiers of Pharmacology, says the evidence is so strong that the drug – used to treat head lice and scabies – should become a standard therapy everywhere, so hastening the global recovery. 

Study co-author Professor Paul Marik, director of emergency and pulmonary care at the Eastern Virginia Medical School in the US, said: ‘The data is overwhelming – we are in a pandemic, and this is an incredibly effective way to combat it. If we use ivermectin widely, our societies can open up.’

+2

More than 30 trials across the world found that ivermectin causes ‘repeated, consistent, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes’ at all stages of the disease (stock image)

Other medications have been touted as effective treatments for combating coronavirus, only for trials to dash hopes – notably with hydroxychloroquine, the anti-malarial drug. 

An earlier study by Professor Andrew Hill of Liverpool University also concluded that ivermectin cuts death rates by around three-quarters. 

Dr Tess Lawrie, director of the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy in Bath, convened an online summit of international experts last weekend to discuss the new data. It included evidence that widespread use of ivermectin in parts of India and South America has led to a big reduction in infections and deaths.

+2

The peer-reviewed study, to be published in the US journal Frontiers of Pharmacology, says the evidence is so strong that the drug – used to treat head lice and scabies – should become a standard therapy everywhere, so hastening the global recovery (file image)

Yesterday Dr Lawrie submitted a 97-page report to the World Health Organisation, urging it immediately to recommend ivermectin to treat Covid. 

The drug, taken in tablet form or as drops, is licensed in Britain only as a treatment for parasitic worms, head lice and scabies.

It has been used by hundreds of millions of patients over the past 30 years, mainly in developing countries, and at around £50 per patient – less in some countries – is far cheaper than other new Covid treatments, such as the rheumatism drug tocilizumab, which costs £1,000 per patient.

The UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency said it was aware of the global study into the use of ivermectin to treat Covid-19 and that its evidence would be reviewed.

Federal law prohibits employers and others from requiring vaccination under an EUA/Stat News

https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/23/federal-law-prohibits-employers-and-others-from-requiring-vaccination-with-a-covid-19-vaccine-distributed-under-an-eua/

By Aaron Siri Feb. 23, 2021

Reprints

A health worker holds a vial of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine at a vaccination center in Pfaffenhofen, Germany.CHRISTOF STACHE/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES

Ever since the Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization for two new vaccines, employers, schools, and other organizations are grappling with whether to require Covid-19 vaccination.

While organizations are certainly free to encourage their employees, students, and other members to be vaccinated, federal law provides that, at least until the vaccine is licensed, individuals must have the option to accept or decline to be vaccinated.

Knowing what an organization can or cannot do with respect to Covid-19 vaccines can help them keep their employees, students, and members safe and also save the them from costly and time-consuming litigation.

Much remains unknown about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine

Even though the FDA granted emergency use authorizations for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines in December 2020, the clinical trials the FDA will rely upon to ultimately decide whether to license these vaccines are still underway and are designed to last for approximately two years to collect adequate data to establish if these vaccines are safe and effective enough for the FDA to license.

The abbreviated timelines for the emergency use applications and authorizations means there is much the FDA does not know about these products even as it authorizes them for emergency use, including their effectiveness against asymptomatic infection, death, and transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes the disease.

Given the uncertainty about the two vaccines, their EUAs are explicit that each is “an investigational vaccine not licensed for any indication” and require that all “promotional material relating to the Covid-19 Vaccine clearly and conspicuously … state that this product has not been approved or licensed by the FDA, but has been authorized for emergency use by FDA” (emphasis added).

EUAs are clear: Getting these vaccines is voluntary

The same section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that authorizes the FDA to grant emergency use authorization also requires the secretary of Health and Human Services to “ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed … of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”

Likewise, the FDA’s guidance on emergency use authorization of medical products requires the FDA to “ensure that recipients are informed to the extent practicable given the applicable circumstances … That they have the option to accept or refuse the EUA product …”

In the same vein, when Dr. Amanda Cohn, the executive secretary of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, was asked if Covid-19 vaccination can be required, she responded that under an EUA, “vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won’t be able to be mandatory.” Cohn later affirmed that this prohibition on requiring the vaccines applies to organizations, including hospitals.

The EUAs for both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines require facts sheets to be given to vaccination providers and recipients. These fact sheets make clear that getting the vaccine is optional. For example, the one for recipients states that, “It is your choice to receive or not receive the Covid-19 Vaccine,” and if “you decide to not receive it, it will not change your standard of medical care.”

What this means in practice

When the FDA grants emergency use authorization for a vaccine, many questions about the product cannot be answered. Given the open questions, when Congress granted the authority to issue EUAs, it chose to require that every individual should be allowed to decide for himself or herself whether or not to receive an EUA product. The FDA and CDC apparently consider this fundamental requirement of choice important enough that even during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic they reinforced that policy decision when issuing their guidance related to the Covid-19 vaccines.

This means that an organization will likely be at odds with federal law if it requires its employees, students or other members to get a Covid-19 vaccine that is being distributed under emergency use authorization.

State law often prohibits retaliating against an employee for refusing to participate in a violation of federal law. Organizations that require Covid-19 vaccination in violation of federal law may face lawsuits under these state laws not only to block the policy but also for damages and attorneys’ fees. Such potentially costly lawsuits can be avoided by refraining from adopting policies that require vaccination or penalize members for choosing not to be vaccinated.

Organizations are free to encourage vaccinations through internal communications, through educational events, and through other measures to urge employees to be vaccinated. They can take these measures so long as: (1) they are not viewed as coercive, (2) the organization makes clear the decision regarding whether to receive the vaccine is voluntary, and (3) the measures comply with the requirements in the EUAs and the related regulations for these products.

People across the world have had their lives upended during the last year. The urgency to return to normalcy is felt deeply by many. As decision-makers at organizations decide on their Covid-19 vaccination policy, they should be careful to not let this passion lead the organization to run afoul of the law.

Aaron Siri is the managing partner at Siri & Glimstad LLP, a complex civil litigation firm with its principal office in New York City. This article is not intended to provide legal advice but to offer broad and general information about the law.