injunctions – Pandemic Timeline https://pandemictimeline.com Chronological Sequence of Events Sun, 23 Jan 2022 06:55:08 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7 https://pandemictimeline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Covid-150x150.ico injunctions – Pandemic Timeline https://pandemictimeline.com 32 32 A case is won against vaccine mandates in Florida https://pandemictimeline.com/2021/09/a-case-is-won-against-vaccine-mandates-in-florida/ Wed, 22 Sep 2021 05:59:06 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=6179 The case is Friend v. City of Gainesville, Florida Circuit Court, Alachua County, No. 133500511. This case does not help everyone.  The argument in this Florida case was based on states rights, which was the real issue in the decision of the 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts case presented to the U.S. Supreme Court.  If your…

Read more →

]]>

The case is Friend v. City of Gainesville, Florida Circuit Court, Alachua County, No. 133500511.

This case does not help everyone.  The argument in this Florida case was based on states rights, which was the real issue in the decision of the 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts case presented to the U.S. Supreme Court.  If your state already has laws against mandatory vaccination, this case will help you; otherwise, you will need to find another strategy to win your case.

The City is playing a game of chicken that risks a catastrophic failure of our infrastructure. I’ve seen internal memorandum surveys and other documentation from in the city suggesting that 60% of city personnel in particular at GRU will either quit, take early retirement, or wait to be terminated instead of taking that shot.

— Jeff Childers

Several months ago, the media began running stories using the 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts case from the U.S. Supreme Court as justification for vaccine mandates.  Jeff Childers says that this is a misunderstanding of the case.  Jeff Childers used Jacobson v. Massachusetts in support of his case against vaccine mandates.  The U.S. Supreme Court said that the U.S. Constitution has nothing in it to support vaccine mandates; therefore, it was necessary to look to the state constitution.

The Massachusetts state constitution had a philosophy of “for the public good” even then that allowed for vaccine mandates.  Massachusetts had a liberal constitution even back then.  The U.S. founding documents do not support a “for the public good” philosophy in the same way, and neither do the constitutions of many states.  Therefore, the case boils down to a states rights issue.  In other words, it is up to the states to decide how they want to manage public health.  There is nothing in Jacobson v. Massachusetts to indicate that the federal government has the right to impose vaccine mandates.  In fact, the case shows quite the opposite.

Further, we now have legislated law that protects us from mandates of drugs still in testing.  The COVID-19 vaccines have not yet completed all testing required of them.  A case could be made that the approval of the Comirnaty vaccine is illegal for this reason.  The mRNA vaccines are classified as gene therapies.  Go check the documents.  It’s in there.  And yet the FDA waived the required gene therapy checklist when it approved the Comirnaty vaccine.  The CDC had to change the definition of “vaccine” so that the mRNA vaccines would fit it; they still might not fit the definition.

Another factor in Jacobson v. Massachusetts is that it dealt with a small pox vaccine that had been in use for many decades and that had a known safety record.  An argument of “for the public good” was valid for the small pox vaccine.  Also, the vaccine mandate law in question in the Supreme Court case only imposed the mandate during outbreaks.

Even though the Comirnaty vaccine is legally approved now, it is still in testing and thus has a still unknown safety record, especially for the long term.  Frankly, it isn’t looking good for the long term, if we go by Israel’s and England’s numbers.  Far from having a record of safety as does the small pox vaccine, the COVID-19 vaccines have shown themselves to be quite dangerous from Day 1 of the rollout.  In conservative numbers, for every 1 that the COVID-19 vaccines might save, 2 will die from the vaccines themselves.  Other calculations show that the number of people who will die from the vaccines to save one life is much higher.  There is nothing supporting public health in numbers like these.  It seems to me that an argument of “for the public good” would not hold up for these vaccines.  Besides, if the government really cared about public health, they would be giving out ivermectin, not trying to smear it.

One could perhaps use the anti-life nature of these specific vaccines to make a legal argument against mandates of these specific vaccines based on the Declaration of Independence, since this document is held to be a founding document in the United States.  The Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Stiftung Corona Ausschuss has determined that the COVID-19 vaccines have been found to be so harmful and so questionable in their composition that administering them is a crime against humanity, and inoculation with these so-called vaccines must be halted altogether.  This is a far different situation than existed with the small pox vaccine case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts.  Had the COVID-19 vaccines been the subject of the Jacobson v. Massachusetts case instead of the small pox vaccine, the case would have been argued much differently and may have had a different outcome.  No one could have made a successful case of “for the public good” in that challenge based on what we know now, especially considering that not only do the so-called vaccines not prevent spread, but the promised reduction of symptoms in a vaccinated carrier may prevent them from realizing that they are infectious and thus spreading the disease.

Jeff Childers made this concluding comment in his interview with Stew Peters:

What I want to tell your folks is that these cases can win.  The template is very simple.  It is unconstitutional.  They don’t own your body.  They’re trying to treat our bodies like property.  A farmer has a herd of cattle, and nobody cares what that farmer injects in those cows because they’re his property.  And back in 1700, they owned people, and you could inject into those people that you owned anything that you wanted.  But we fought a bloody civil war in this country to end that.  And so your body is your body, and it’s nobody else’s.  It’s not the government’s for sure because what’s the difference between a slave owner and a slave and a free citizen who is a citizen of a government?*  If you can’t do with your body what you want to do with it, then you have no rights left.  You’re just a slave.

* Our United States Constitution tells us that the government belongs to the people, not the other way around.

Following this recent success, Jeff Childers is now forming a collaboration with other attorneys who want to fight COVID mandates.

Sources:

Related:

See also, on this site:

]]> U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals tells OSHA to stand down on vaccine mandates https://pandemictimeline.com/2021/11/u-s-fifth-circuit-court-of-appeals-tells-osha-to-stand-down-on-vaccine-mandates/ Fri, 12 Nov 2021 00:00:29 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=7405 This case has not been decided at the time of this writing. Because the petitions give cause to believe there are grave statutory and constitutional issues with the Mandate, the Mandate is hereby STAYED pending further action by this court. — November 6, 2021, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit On November…

Read more →

]]> This case has not been decided at the time of this writing.

Because the petitions give cause to believe there are grave statutory and constitutional issues with the Mandate, the Mandate is hereby STAYED pending further action by this court.

— November 6, 2021, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

On November 12, 2021, the court ordered to extend the stay.

We first consider whether the petitioners’ challenges to the Mandate are likely to succeed on the merits. For a multitude of reasons, they are.

…

The Mandate’s stated impetus—a purported “emergency” that the entire globe has now endured for nearly two years,10 and which OSHA itself spent nearly two months responding to11—is unavailing as well. And its promulgation grossly exceeds OSHA’s statutory authority.

After the President voiced his displeasure with the country’s vaccination rate in September,12 the Administration pored over the U.S. Code in search of authority, or a “work-around,”13 for imposing a national vaccine mandate. The vehicle it landed on was an OSHA ETS. The statute empowering OSHA allows OSHA to bypass typical notice-and-comment proceedings for six months by providing “for an emergency temporary standard to take immediate effect upon publication in the Federal Register” if it “determines (A) that employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards, and (B) that such emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger.” 29 U.S.C. § 655(c)(1).

— November 12, 2021, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

In the order, the three-judge panel from the Fifth Circuit said:

  • “the Mandate [is] fatally flawed on its own terms.”
  • “The Mandate’s stated impetus—a purported ‘emergency’ that the entire globe has now endured for nearly two years, and which OSHA itself spent nearly two months responding to—is unavailing as well.”
  • “The Mandate threatens to substantially burden the liberty interests of reluctant individual recipients put to a choice between their job(s) and their jab(s).
  • It “is critical to note that the Mandate makes no serious attempt to explain why OSHA and the President himself were against vaccine mandates before they were for one here.”
  • “OSHA’s attempt to shoehorn an airborne virus that is both widely present in society (and thus not particular to any workplace) and non-life-threatening to a vast majority of employees into a neighboring phrase connoting toxicity and poisonousness is yet another transparent stretch.”
  • “health agencies do not make housing policy, and occupational safety administrations do not make health policy”
  • “the petitioners’ motion for a stay pending review is GRANTED. Enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s “COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard” remains STAYED pending adequate judicial review of the petitioners’ underlying motions for a permanent injunction. In addition, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that OSHA take no steps to implement or enforce the Mandate until further court order.”

— November 12, 2021, Press Release

The National Law Review mentions this case as if it is included in the bundle that will now be heard by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and so I assume that this case is now part of the bundled case that will be tried by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  At this time, I am still waiting for the Liberty Justice Center to comment on this new turn of events.

Sources:

Related:

See also, on this site:

]]> Courts issue injunctions against federal CMS vaccine mandate https://pandemictimeline.com/2021/11/courts-issue-injunctions-against-federal-cms-vaccine-mandate/ Mon, 29 Nov 2021 00:00:42 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=7683 The Missouri case injunction affects only the ten states that filed the case.  They are Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.  The Louisiana case injunction affects the remainder of the states. The Louisiana injunction has now been limited to only those states filing that case. So far,…

Read more →

]]> The Missouri case injunction affects only the ten states that filed the case.  They are Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.  The Louisiana case injunction affects the remainder of the states.

The Louisiana injunction has now been limited to only those states filing that case.

So far, my only source for this update is:

“Earlier today, the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, issued a preliminary injunction halting the Biden Administration from enforcing its vaccine mandate on healthcare workers. This is a huge victory for healthcare workers in Missouri and across the country, including rural hospitals who were facing near certain collapse due to this mandate,” said Attorney General Schmitt. “While today’s ruling is a victory, there’s more work to be done, and I will keep fighting to push back on this unprecedented federal overreach.”

— Eric Schmitt, Missouri Attorney General

… the court concluded that the Mandate was completely irrational and therefore probably illegal.

…

This final finding is incredibly significant. The court is saying that the Mandate even fails rational basis review. “Rational basis” is the EASIEST standard for the government to meet. But when a law is “arbitrary and capricious,” it is not rational, and therefore fails even that minimal standard. In other words, it’s a dead duck. Quack, quack, aargh…

This finding about the lack of rational basis is a killer, and because it is based on factual findings, it will be extremely difficult for the Administration to overturn it on appeal. The appellate court must defer to the District Court on its factual findings, absent clear error. But the District Court carefully cited the evidence it relied on. And the evidence was almost all from admissions by CMS, and not the evidence provided by the states. Because of that, it will be almost impossible for an appellate court to overturn the District Court’s factual findings based on CMS’s own admissions.

How fast will this holding spreads beyond the original ten states? The rest of the states now have a complete roadmap to defeating the CMS Mandate. I think it will spread quickly. Stay tuned.

— Jeff Childers (Nov. 30)

The Court also found the COVID-19 pandemic was not the type of grave danger 29 U.S.C. 655 contemplates, noting that the OSHA Mandate made no attempt to explain why OSHA and the President were against CMS Mandates previously. The Court noted it is generally “arbitrary and capricious” to depart from a prior policy without providing a detailed explanation.

…

The federal agency is required to give general notice of proposed rulemaking to be published in the Federal Register not more than thirty days before the proposed rules’ effective date and to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments. Failure to give required notice and comment requires the rule to be vacated. … The CMS Mandate became effective on November 5, 2021, which is the same day it was published in the Federal Register.

…

If the separation of powers meant anything to the Constitutional framers, it meant that the three necessary ingredients to deprive a person of liberty or property – the power to make rules, to enforce them, and to judge their violations – could never fall into the same hands. Tiger Lily, LLC v. United States Housing and Urban Development, 5 F.4th 666 (6th Cir. 2021). (Thapar, J. Concurrence). If the Executive branch is allowed to usurp the power of the Legislative branch to make laws, two of the three powers conferred by the Constitution would be in the same hands.

…

In addressing the geographic scope of the preliminary injunction, due to the nationwide scope of the CMS Mandate, a nationwide injunction is necessary due to the need for uniformity. Texas, 809 F.3d at 187-88. Although this Court considered limiting the injunction to the fourteen Plaintiff States, there are unvaccinated healthcare workers in other states who also need protection. Therefore, the scope of this injunction will be nationwide, except for the states of Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, New Hampshire, Nebraska, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, since these ten states are already under a preliminary injunction order dated November 29, 2021, out of the Eastern District of Missouri.

— Judge Terry A Doughty

Like the Missouri court, the Louisiana court called CMS’s experts liars, in fancy judge language:

“The Plaintiff States also argue that CMS’s rationale is flagrantly pretextual. The Government Defendants say it is not pretextual, but it is obvious that the mandate was enacted as a result of President Biden’s September 9, 2021, declaration of his intention to impose a national CMS Mandate. Both the CMS and OSHA vaccine mandates were published on the same day, November 5, 2021. However, the 46-page CMS Mandate does not even mention President Biden’s declaration of a national vaccine mandate. The presence of pretext is enough to render a rule arbitrary and capricious.”

A “pretext” is defined as “a false, contrived, or assumed purpose or reason,” and “a cunning trick or dishonest act.” It’s no small thing for a court to accuse CMS of acting under a pretext. And, the court said the pretext was SO BAD it constituted a separate and stand-alone reason to invalidate the whole rule.

But it got worse for CMS. The judge went ahead and considered the agency’s excuses at face value, evaluated all of CMS’ experts’ arguments about how great injection mandates are, and still found that they ALL came up empty:

“Although CMS spent pages and pages attempting to explain the need for mandatory COVID-19 vaccines, when infection and hospitalizations rates are dropping, millions of people have already been infected, developing some form of natural immunity, and when people who have been fully vaccinated still become infected, mandatory vaccines as the only method of prevention make no sense.”

NO SENSE. None. “Senseless.” In other words, a ridiculous travesty. What Narrative?

But wait. It gets better. The court — finally! — asked the question we’ve all been asking:

“The CMS Mandate does not yet require boosters to the COVID-19 vaccines. However, the CDC recently recommended boosters. If boosters are needed six months after being ‘fully vaccinated,’ then how good are the COVID-19 vaccines, and why is it necessary to mandate them?”

This is the logical conundrum that I’ve been harping on for two months now. If the vaccines work, why boost them? If they DON’T work, why force people to take them?

And — in a remark that must have been extremely gratifying for the beleaguered good doctor — the court raised this fundamental question about the “efficacy” of the injections, citing Dr. Peter McCullough:

“Dr. McCullough further declared that because of the progressive mutation of the spike protein, the virus has achieved an immune escape from COVID-19 vaccines. He stated the Delta variant is not adequately covered by the vaccines. In other words, even if you are fully vaccinated, you still may become infected with the COVID-19 virus.”

Ruh-roh, Scooby. It’s out now! A federal court just grabbed the curtain in its teeth and pulled it back so we can all see the pathetic little public health expert working the machinery.

— Jeff Childers (Dec. 1) with quotes from Judge Terry A Doughty

For the reasons set forth in this Court’s ruling, Plaintiff States’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 2] is GRANTED. Therefore, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, along with their directors, employees, Administrators and Secretaries are hereby ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from implementing the CMS Mandate set forth in 86 Fed. Reg. 61555-01 (November 5, 2021) as to all healthcare providers, suppliers, owners, employees, and all others covered by said CMS Mandate.

This preliminary injunction shall remain in effect pending the final resolution of this case, or until further orders from this Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, or the United States Supreme Court.

— Judge Terry A Doughty

Sources:

See also, on this site:

]]> Court issues injunction against federal contractor vaccine mandate https://pandemictimeline.com/2021/11/court-issues-injunction-against-federal-contractor-vaccine-mandate/ Tue, 30 Nov 2021 00:00:33 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=7718 Initially, this affected only the three plaintiff states: Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.  Now, another ruling has been handed down that affects the remaining states as well.  The second ruling was issued nationwide because one of the plaintiffs in the case does business nationwide. 🔥 Also yesterday, a federal district court in Kentucky became the first…

Read more →

]]> Initially, this affected only the three plaintiff states: Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.  Now, another ruling has been handed down that affects the remaining states as well.  The second ruling was issued nationwide because one of the plaintiffs in the case does business nationwide.

🔥 Also yesterday, a federal district court in Kentucky became the first court to enjoin the Biden Executive Order Mandate for federal contractors, albeit only in three states (for now). The court said the president can’t just order everybody to take injections:

“Can the president use congressionally delegated authority to manage the federal procurement of goods and services to impose vaccines on the employees of federal contractors and subcontractors? In all likelihood, the answer to that question is no.”

Nope.

The feds argued that, hey, this mandate only applies to FUTURE contracts, so there’s no harm to anybody right now. So there shouldn’t be an injunction. But the court was having none of it:

“[I]f the government is already attempting to require contracts not officially covered by the vaccine mandate to still include such a mandate, it stands to reason that contractors who do not comply will likely be blacklisted from future contracting opportunities if they refuse to comply. This is particularly true given President Biden’s remarks on September 7: ‘If you want to work with the federal government, vaccinate your workforce.’”

Common sense!

The court considered whether the Biden Contractor Mandate had any legitimate relationship with federal contracting, and found that it did NOT:

“Defendants argue that the nexus between the vaccine mandate and economy and efficiency in federal contracting ‘is self-evident.’ [But] While the statute grants to the president great discretion, it strains credulity that Congress intended … a procurement statute to be the basis for promulgating a public health measure such as mandatory vaccination.”

More common sense. The court said look, if the president can do THIS under a procurement statute, he can do ANYTHING:

“If a vaccination mandate has a close enough nexus to economy and efficiency in federal procurement, then the statute could be used to enact virtually any measure at the president’s whim under the guise of economy and efficiency. “

Haha! It got better! The court then put fat-shaming on the table:

“Under the same logic employed by the Defendants regarding the vaccine mandate, what would stop FPASA from being used to permit federal agencies to refuse to contract with contractors and subcontractors who employ individuals over a certain BMI for the sake of economy and efficiency during the pandemic? After all, the CDC has declared that obesity worsens the outcomes from Covid-19.”

Take that, CDC fat shamers!

The irrationality of the mandate, and the president’s lack of authority are good. But the best part was when the court got to the constitutional issues. First, it identified the core principle, the separation of powers issue:

“Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate legislative power to the President to exercise an unfettered discretion to make whatever laws he thinks may be needed or advisable.”

Thank you! Even though he thinks he’s a dictator — if he thinks at all — Biden can’t just make up whatever deranged and demented laws he or Fauci can think of. That’s what we have a legislature for.

Another bit of great news in the decision is that — like the Missouri decision — this court ratified my reading of the Jacobson decision, a view the “experts” have completely ignored since the beginning of the pandemic. My view is that Jacobson says that vaccine mandates are left to state law, and the Louisiana court seems to agree:

“The Court is also concerned that the vaccine mandate intrudes on an area that is traditionally reserved to the States. … Generally, the regulation of health and safety matters is primarily and historically, a matter of local concern. … The Commerce Clause power may be expansive, but it does not grant Congress the power to regulate noneconomic inactivity traditionally within the States’ police power. In sum, the Mandate would far exceed current constitutional authority.”

Maybe you need to be a lawyer to get it, but the phrase “regulate noneconomic inactivity” is intentionally hilarious. The court (citing the Fifth Circuit) is saying the federal government is trying to make laws about things we aren’t even thinking of doing. Super LOL.

Ultimately the judge considered whether the injunction should be extended nationwide, but due to conservative principles developed during the Trump administration when Hawaii kept enjoining everything Trump did, it limited the order to the three plaintiff states, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.

Despite its limited application, the decision gives the other states a template and some new law to cite. Since the federal contractor mandate doesn’t kick in immediately, there’s time for the other states to get in gear, and contractors should now hold off on their mandates, since it looks likely that the EO will fall.

— Jeff Childers with quotes from Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove

Jeff Childers has now chimed in on the Georgia case:

🔥 Freedom and the rule of law are now three for three. After a Kentucky judge enjoined Biden’s Federal Contractor Mandate in three states, another judge — this one in Georgia — has also halted the mandate, this time nationwide. Now, all three big mandates are frozen: OSHA, CMS, and now, the Federal Contractor Mandate.

Seven states including Georgia sued to stop the Federal Contractor Mandate. Judge Baker — a 2017 Trump appointee — found they were likely to succeed in their lawsuit to declare the mandate unconstitutional. The judge rejected the idea that “emergencies” trump the Constitution:

“Even in times of crisis this Court must preserve the rule of law and ensure that all branches of government act within the bounds of their constitutionally granted authorities.”

In this decision, the Court carefully avoided the factual issue of whether the vaccines “work” or not and just focused on the constitutional issues. In other words, it doesn’t MATTER whether the injections work, it is STILL unconstitutional. As I have said repeatedly. This is the same reasoning I used in my successful mask case from last year. It doesn’t MATTER whether masks work. It’s still unconstitutional.

— Jeff Childers with quote from Judge R. Stan Baker

Well, not quite.  It’s three of four.  The military mandate still stands, even though the judge in that case gave the service members an out.

Please note that these cases win based on law or constitutionality.  Whether the jabs work or not is not at issue in these cases.

Including such considerations may have been what caused the judge in the military case to conclude that the case would not succeed.  Considerations of whether the jabs work or not perhaps more appropriately belong in a criminal case.

Sources:

See also, on this site:

]]>