Date: June 30th, 2026 6:38 PM Author: Razzmatazz pea-brained goal in life church
06/30/2026 69 JUDGMENT entered pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), that the case is dismissed for failure to establish by a preponderance of evidence that petitioner is entitled to compensation. (Service on parties made.) (sm) (Entered: 06/30/2026)
Date: July 2nd, 2026 5:09 PM Author: Razzmatazz pea-brained goal in life church
chatgpt thinks the pauper's redaction request wasn't supported by evidence and the court is requiring an affidavit before it grants his redaction request.
Date: July 2nd, 2026 5:13 PM Author: obsidian state
I have no doubt he is asking the court to redact all of it and attaching xo threads to his affidavit and claiming that he is an online bullying victim.
Date: July 2nd, 2026 5:18 PM Author: Razzmatazz pea-brained goal in life church
AI doesnt know when the decision will be public:
Earliest realistic public release: shortly after July 30, 2026, if petitioner files no affidavit or files one that the special master promptly finds insufficient.
More likely: early to mid-August 2026, because the special master will need to review the affidavit, decide the redaction issue, and then have the final public version posted.
Possible later: late August or September 2026, if petitioner seeks an extension, respondent is allowed to respond to the affidavit, or the special master takes longer to resolve the redaction dispute.
The rules do not give a hard publication deadline once a redaction motion is pending. They say that where no redaction motion is filed, the full decision will be made public within a “reasonable time” after the 14-day redaction period expires. But that default provision does not cleanly answer this situation because a redaction motion was filed and remains unresolved.