Surprisingly little attention is being paid to a bombshell admission made by the attorneys representing the corporation formerly known as Facebook, Inc., which has now transitioned into Meta Platforms, Inc.
Showing posts with label Class Action. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Class Action. Show all posts
Federal Vaccine Mandate Temporarily Suspended
On Saturday, November 6, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit temporarily suspended the Biden administration’s emergency temporary standard (“OSHA ETS”) for employers with 100 or more employees. As we reported last week, the OSHA ETS mandates that covered employers implement COVID-19 vaccination or regular testing requirements for employees. Citing “grave and constitutional issues,” the three-judge Fifth Circuit panel put the newly issued rule on hold pending further litigation. The stay order has nationwide effect.
While lawsuits challenging the brand-new OSHA ETS were filed by 27 states and private businesses in multiple circuits (including the Sixth Circuit), the conservative Fifth Circuit was the first court to rule on the issue. Challengers argue that the OSHA ETS is illegal, in that it exceeds the authority of, and is not proper subject matter for, the issuing agency (OSHA), and would be counterproductive by further straining an already tight labor market. The Biden administration contends that the OSHA ETS is lawful and necessary to help end the COVID-19 pandemic, and stated it will vigorously defend the ETS in forthcoming court proceedings.
There's a complete media blackout on the OSHA decision to suspend the vaccination mandate. Imagine that. Is it that OSHA knew they couldn't pull this one off in court so they just climbed back down the ladder?
— Media Malpractice (@BlanktheMedia) November 17, 2021
"OSHA Suspends Implementation and Enforcement of Vaccine Mandate Pending Litigation" This is for all those employees who quit or who were threatened to be fired over the Federal Vaccine mandate. There is a media blackout so use Bing or DuckDuckGo.BREAKING: OSHA says it will comply with the 5th Circuit court order to suspend the implementation and enforcement of the Biden vaccine mandate.
— Marie Oakes (@TheMarieOakes) November 17, 2021
"OSHA has suspended activities related to the implementation and enforcement of the ETS pending future developments in the litigation." pic.twitter.com/HmPbDO4ETd
Related stories
"OSHA Suspends" & "Died Suddenly" Trending Google Search Terms - 2 Examples Of How The FAKE LEGACY NEWS MEDIA doesn't cover the REAL NEWS anymore!
What Happens When Biden's Vax Mandates Fail? Lawyers Win Big $
We predict that the failure of the Biden vax mandates will eventually lead to huge legal liability for companies and academic institutions- illegal termination, vaccine damages, etc. This will also be a major financial windfall for independent lawyers.
Why independent lawyers, you ask? Because the large firms are all getting bought out by Pharma contracting for legal work and triggering "conflict of interest" clauses that block them from taking these cases.
What does this have to do with Biden's mandates? Because if they fail in the courts, then the legal top cover for the academic institutions, hospitals, and businesses vanish. The government and Pharma are indemnified. So then the organizations become the bagholders for liability.
This thesis applies more generally to most public policies: the larger public and private institutions are left holding the bag. The upcoming financial crisis will again confirm that.
Most large law firms can't take our cases now because they feared their other clients would leave. The one we hired is an independent spitfire and I’m glad we found him.
It is kind of like when high profile people speak to many divorce lawyers before an impending divorce to reduce their spouse from attaining certain councils.
I predict that the failure of the Biden vax mandates will eventually lead to huge legal liability for companies and academic institutions- illegal termination, vaccine damages, etc. This will also be a major financial windfall for independent lawyers.
— Robert W Malone, MD (@RWMaloneMD) November 13, 2021
"It Raises Serious Constitutional Concerns" - Appeals Court Re-Affirms Stay On Biden Vaccine Mandate
One wouldn't know it by scanning the front pages of say WaPo, NYT or Bloomberg where it wasn't even mentioned, but late on Friday a bad week, month, and year for the scrambling Biden administration - which in addition to the recent disaster in Virginia where a public referendum on "wokeness" saw the public overwhelmingly vote down the Democrats' attempt to subvert social norms, is also facing the worst inflationary inferno since Nixon ended the gold standard - after a U.S. appeals court upheld its decision to put on hold Joe Biden's unconstitutional order for companies with 100 workers or more to demand COVID-19 vaccines, rejecting a challenge by his administration.
A three-member panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans affirmed its ruling despite the Biden administration's position that halting implementation of the vaccine mandate could lead to dozens or even hundreds of deaths. No Nov 6, the Fifth Circuit granted a temporary stay on enforcement of the federal mandate, one day after the rule was announced. In its reaffirmation Friday, the court said the mandate "exposes [petitioners] to severe financial risk" and "threatens to decimate their workforces (and business prospects)."
"The mandate is staggeringly overbroad," the opinion said adding that the vaccine mandate "raises serious constitutional concerns" and "likely exceeds the federal government’s authority."
"The mandate is a one-size-fits-all sledgehammer that makes hardly any attempt to account for differences in workplaces (and workers)," Circuit Court Judge Kurt Engelhardt wrote for the panel.
5th Circuit affirms OSHA stay applies nationwide. @POTUS can’t mandate vaccines on private companies. #lagov #lalege
— AG Jeff Landry (@AGJeffLandry) November 13, 2021
In its ruling, the Fifth Circuit judges agreed with opponents of vaccine mandates, which have become a deeply controversial topic in the United States (as if the country needed any more of those) - supporters say they are a must to put an end to the nearly two-year coronavirus pandemic, while opponents argue they violate the Constitution and curb individual liberty.
"The public interest is also served by maintaining our constitutional structure and maintaining the liberty of individuals to make intensely personal decisions according to their own convictions - even, or perhaps particularly, when those decisions frustrate government officials," Engelhardt wrote.
At Biden’s orders, the OSHA issued a rule earlier this month requiring U.S. employers with 100 or more workers to ensure their workers are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergoing weekly tests for the virus by Jan 4. Businesses that don’t comply face thousands of dollars in fines.
The rule prompted a slate of legal challenges from at least 27 states as well as business and religious groups who argue the mandate is unconstitutional. Biden and other federal officials argue the mandate is necessary to end the COVID-19 pandemic and fully reopen the economy.
White House officials had no immediate comment on the ruling, which was hailed as a victory by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Texas joined other U.S. states, as well as private employers and religious organizations, in legal challenges to the order.
"Citing Texas's "compelling argument[s]," the 5th Circuit has delayed OSHA's unconstitutional and illegal private-business vaccine mandate. WE WON! Litigation will continue, but this is a massive victory for Texas and for FREEDOM from Biden's tyranny and lawlessness," Paxton wrote.
🚨Citing Texas’s “compelling argument[s],” 5th Circuit has stayed OSHA’s unconstitutional & illegal private-business vaccine mandate. WE WON! Litigation will continue, but this is a massive victory for Texas & FREEDOM from Biden’s tyranny & lawlessness.https://t.co/w7MKyXs73L
— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) November 13, 2021
Naturally Immune Federal Workers Lodge Class-Action Suit Against Fauci, Walensky Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
See more of our articles on class actions.
The government not only failed to offer a carve-out exemption for naturally immune workers, or those who have recovered, but neither President Joe Biden’s executive order nor the guidance explaining it outlines why naturally acquired immunity isn’t an acceptable alternative to vaccination, the lawsuit states.
“Because they already have natural immunity, there is no coherent purpose for the federal government to require them to undertake a medical procedure to be vaccinated if they choose not to, or be terminated from their employment, their careers,” Robert Henneke, general counsel at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and one of the lawyers representing the government workers, told The Epoch Times.
Plaintiffs say the mandate violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows courts to overturn government actions deemed “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
They quoted Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a former Food and Drug Administration commissioner who now sits on the board of Pfizer. During recent television appearances, Gottlieb described natural immunity as “durable” and “robust” and said that government officials should start assimilating it into policy discussions. They also cited Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, an immunologist who has said it is medically unnecessary for the recovered to get vaccinated.
Dozens of studies have shown that people who survived COVID-19 have strong immunity against re-infection from the virus that causes it, with some indicating the protection is similar to or higher than that provided by vaccines.
Workers tried communicating concerns about the mandate but those “have completely fallen on deaf ears, which is why we’ve turned to litigation,” Henneke said.
“I think it’s clear that the Biden administration, the federal government, is entrenched in their position on this. And so further negotiation would be pointless and instead we’re going to seek assistance from the courts,” he added.
The deadline for federal workers to get a COVID-19 vaccine was effectively Nov. 8, because people aren’t considered fully vaccinated until two weeks after they’ve received their final jab. Agencies were able to begin disciplining unvaccinated workers on Nov. 9, according to Kiran Ahuja, an administration official.
The suit asks the federal court in Galveston, Texas, to declare the mandate a violation of the plaintiffs’ rights and arbitrary and capricious and relieve workers from complying with it.
Defendants named include Fauci, the longtime head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and Jeffrey Zients, who coordinates the White House COVID-19 response team.
The institute and the White House did not respond to requests for comment. The centers declined to comment.
Federal health officials have recently acknowledged natural immunity exists but continue insisting it is inferior to the protection conferred by vaccines. They also say people who have recovered from COVID-19 can still benefit from vaccination.
Federal workers who have recovered from COVID-19 have filed a class-action lawsuit against Anthony Fauci, CDC Director Walensky, and other officials over the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate which still applies to those with natural immunity.https://t.co/RiV7M8XHjN
— Michael P Senger (@MichaelPSenger) November 12, 2021
1,300 COVID vaccine-related injury claims are now pending before an obscure government tribunal
If you want to follow these cases and others please subscribe to this Subreddit "Tribunals" (Just Banned)
Federal tribunals in the United States are those tribunals established by the federal government of the United States for the purpose of resolving disputes involving or arising under federal laws, including questions about the constitutionality of such laws.
Tribunals are often confused with courts. Tribunals are a part of the administrative system whereas courts, in general, are the creation of the judiciary which is entirely a separate organ. Both the courts and tribunals operate independently of each other. Although their objectives are the same yet there are major differences that establish them as separate bodies.
Tribunals are established under administrative law, which is an offshoot of decentralization of government authorities. Decentralization has resulted in the increased number of departments that have maximized the responsibility of government. Hence, these departments are given the authority to look after their disputes independently without any interference of courts except when the decisions are challenged in their legality.
Just like any court, a tribunal has a permanent establishment. There’s a bench of adjudicators who are responsible to pronounce a just and fair decision in favor of the aggrieved party. As compared to a court, the proceedings of a tribunal are less formal and speedy. The courts are expected to be rigid in their functions because they’re directed to do so as per the rules and code of conduct. Their performance is reported to the higher courts that initiate misconduct proceedings in absence of obedience to proper conduct. In tribunals, the adjudicators are selected from the organization or the department itself. The department makes its own sets of rules and they’re relatively flexible and informal.
The tribunal decisions are binding upon the parties. However, they’re appealable or challengeable in the court, provided the law under which the tribunal is established provides for the opportunity of appeal to the higher courts.
As the Biden administration puts the final touches on an emergency COVID-19 vaccine mandate for companies with 100 or more employees, a crucial piece seems to be missing for the unlucky few who experience serious side effects: meaningful legal recourse.
More than 1,300 COVID vaccine-related injury claims are now pending before an obscure government tribunal, which to date has decided only two such cases, one involving swelling of the tongue and throat following the jab, the other alleging long-lasting, severe shoulder pain.
In both instances, the government, which requires claimants to prove their injuries are “the direct result” of a COVID-19 vaccine, denied compensation.
It’s a steep burden of proof. Lawyers tell me the vaccine is so new that there’s virtually no definitive research on injury causation to cite. THIS IS A BLATANT LIE BY REUTERS.
All you have to do is look at the Vaers database and see these stories about side effects.
Indeed, the overwhelming majority of all litigants under what's known as the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program have not succeeded. According to program data, 29 claims have been paid for injuries stemming from other vaccines since the tribunal’s inception in 2010. (Ten additional claims won approval but no compensation.) The other 455 claims – 92% – were denied or otherwise deemed ineligible for review.
For those who prevailed, the median award was $5,677, according to my calculations, spanning from a low of $31 to a high of $2.3 million, for a person who contracted Guillain-Barre Syndrome after receiving the H1N1 influenza vaccine.
There is no provision for damages based on pain and suffering.
For people like Jessica McFadden, who said she developed life-threatening blood clots after receiving Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine in April, legal options are unclear. She's not optimistic about her odds of recovering her losses, and it's certain she won't be able to recover any pain and suffering damages under the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program.
McFadden, 44, said she was previously healthy and needed two emergency surgeries to remove massive clots in her lungs, heart and left leg. She spent nine days in the hospital, racking up $489,153 in medical bills, she said. Her insurance will cover most, but not all of the tab, she said, and she estimates she'll pay up to $7,000 out of pocket.
She emailed me a photo of extracted clots, which she said were removed during an agonizing procedure performed while she was conscious. They are thick and ropy, like nightcrawlers on a surgical tray.
McFadden, who said she has returned to work but is still taking blood thinners, has not spoken publicly of her ordeal until now. “I’m not an anti-vaxxer. I understand the need for the vaccine,” she said. “I was just trying to do the right thing.”
To be clear, an experience like McFadden described is extremely rare. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May said that out of 8.7 million people who had gotten the J&J jab, only 28 suffered the complication known as thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome. Per the CDC, there is a "plausible causal association" between the vaccine and the blood clots.
Johnson & Johnson in a statement said, “The safety and well-being of the people who use our products is our number one priority.”
To McFadden, the issue is not that COVID-19 vaccines are bad or that no one should get them. Rather, she said, what’s important is how we care for people “when something catastrophic happens” as a result, especially now that vaccine mandates are becoming so widespread.
For decades, vaccine makers have been shielded from product liability lawsuits thanks to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The law was passed after pharmaceutical companies were hit with lawsuits over a brain injury known as pertussis vaccine encephalopathy and threatened to quit making the DPT (diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus) vaccine altogether.
Under the 1986 law, people who claim to have been injured by DPT, hepatitis, influenza and other common shots bring their cases in a special, no-fault tribunal, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, known colloquially as “vaccine court.” Payouts (including attorneys’ fees) are funded by a 75-cent tax per vaccine.
The forum is far from perfect, but over the years, it has awarded more than $4 billion to injured claimants.
But that’s not where the COVID-19 vaccine injury cases are being decided.
In March 2020, then-Health and Human Services secretary Alex Azar issued a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005 providing liability immunity for medical countermeasures related to the novel coronavirus. Injury claims would be handled by the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, which is run by the Health Resources and Services Administration and is geared toward public health emergencies.
Coverage for claimants is limited: Lost wages up to $50,000 a year and out-of-pocket medical expenses. If the person died,
his or her next-of-kin can seek death benefits up to $370,376.
A spokeswoman for HRSA declined my request for an interview but explained in an email how the process works.
First, the person claiming an injury submits a request for a benefits form and relevant medical records. For COVID-19 vaccine injuries, the claims already include a veritable Merck Manual of maladies, everything from dizziness to deafness to death, according to HRSA data.
The form is “reviewed by CICP medical staff,” who decide whether the requester is eligible for program benefits.
If requesters don’t like the decision, they can ask for reconsideration by “a qualified panel, independent of the program.” The panel makes a recommendation to the associate administrator of the Health Systems Bureau of HRSA, whose decision on the payout is final.
You might notice a few things are missing, like an independent judge, a chance to present one's case in person, damages for pain and suffering and the right to appeal beyond the agency.
Vaccine court has all these features. CICP has none.
But this is where the COVID-19 vaccine cases are relegated, at least for now. Per the steps laid out in the 1986 vaccine law, for the COVID-19 vaccine to move to vaccine court, the CDC must first recommend the shots for routine administration to children. Then Congress must pass a law adding the 75-cent tax on each COVID-19 vaccine given, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services must move the vaccines to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
All of this could take years.
Legislation is pending in Congress that would expedite the process (as well as upping vaccine court damages, extending the statute of limitations from three years to five and adding more special masters), but it has yet to gain traction.
Spokespeople for the bill’s sponsors in the House of Representatives – Texas Democrat Lloyd Doggett, and Republicans Fred Upton of Michigan and Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania – did not respond to requests for comment.
In the meantime, people like McFadden face a strict one-year deadline from the date of vaccination to file a claim with the CICP. But it’s not clear if filing in the CICP would preclude her from later moving her case to vaccine court, should that become an option.
She told me that she's waiting until early next year to decide how to proceed.
Forget Class Action Lawsuits There Will Be Tribunals
Dr. Zelenko Board Certified Family Physician with over 20 years of experience. Dr. Zelenko was nominated for the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Nobel Prize, Dr. Zelenko’s team was one of the first in the country to successfully treat thousands of Covid-19 patients in the prehospital setting.
Dr. Zelenko developed his now famous “Zelenko Protocol,” which has saved countless lives worldwide. Dr. Zelenko recommended that President Trump take hydroxychloroquine. Dr. Zelenko explains how and why he decided to use HCQ and how he has created success in curing over 7000 patients who had covid. Cures already exist, and Dr. Zelenko believes that HCQ might even cure the flu and this is why the medical community is pushing back so hard, it would eliminate the flu shot.
All source links to the report can be found on the x22report.com site.
Most of artwork that is included with these videos has been created by X22 Report and they are used as a representation of the subject matter. The representative artwork included with these videos shall not be construed as the actual events that are taking place.
Fair Use Notice: This video contains some copyrighted material whose use has not been authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational, and/or criticism or commentary use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Fair Use notwithstanding we will immediately comply with any copyright owner who wants their material removed or modified, wants us to link to their website, or wants us to add their photo.
The X22 Report is "one man's opinion". Anything that is said on the report is either opinion, criticism, information or commentary, If making any type of investment or legal decision it would be wise to contact or consult a professional before making that decision.
Use the information found in these videos as a starting point for conducting your own research and conducting your own due diligence before making any significant investing decisions.
Judge Orders United Airlines Not To Put Workers Seeking Vaccine Mandate Exception On Leave
The employees, who include two pilots and one flight attendant, accused the airline of discrimination against workers who requested accommodation, saying the policy violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act, according to the lawsuit.
Pittman's restraining order, which expires on October 26, is only a temporary halt to United's policy while he hears more arguments on the case.
The temporary ruling was issued by U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman so workers who filed for an exemption aren’t unduly harmed before he can hear oral arguments in the case.
Six United workers sued the company last month over its plans to put on leave any employees who requested religious or medical exemptions. The suit said the employees were effectively told they’d be terminated if they sought exemptions and alleged that the company was violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA.
“United’s actions have left Plaintiffs with the impossible choice of either taking the COVID-19 vaccine, at the expense of their religious beliefs and their health, or losing their livelihoods. In doing so, United has violated Title VII and the ADA by failing to engage in the interactive process and provide reasonable accommodations, and also by retaliating against employees who engaged in protected activity,” the suit states.
United and the plaintiffs reached an agreement that the company would not place exempted employees on leave during a Sept. 24 hearing, Pittman said, obviating the need for an immediate ruling. He planned to hear arguments on a motion for a preliminary injunction on Oct. 8 but United filed a partial motion to dismiss, alleging the court lacked jurisdiction over some of the claims.
The hearing was reset to Oct. 13. Ahead of the arguments, Pittman said he concluded it was necessary to issue a temporary restraining order that is effective through Oct. 31.
Absent entry of the order, “the parties’ stipulation will expire before the Court can rule on whether a preliminary injunction is warranted,” the Trump nominee wrote.
“If the parties’ stipulation were to expire without temporary injunctive relief in place, nothing would prevent hundreds of workers from ostensibly either: (1) being compelled to take a vaccination in violation of their religious beliefs or medical restrictions, or (2) being placed on indefinite unpaid leave by United,” he added.
United said earlier this month that 320 workers in the United States, or 0.5 percent of the U.S. workforce, were not in compliance with its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
United told news outlets after Pittman’s order that “vaccine requirements work and nearly all of United’s U.S. employees have chosen to get a shot.”
“For a number of our employees who were approved for an accommodation, we’re working to put options in place that reduce the risk to their health and safety, including new testing regimens, temporary job reassignments, and masking protocols,” the airline said.
Mark Paoletta, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, told The Epoch Times in an email that United’s “refusal to provide reasonable accommodations to its vaccine mandate violates the federal civil rights protections of our clients, the hard working men and women at United,” adding, “We look forward to our clients’ rights being permanently protected.”
Judge Overrules NY Governor - Employers Must Grant Religious Exemptions
A federal judge in New York ruled on Tuesday that State Health Officials must allow employers to grant religious exemptions to a Covid-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers while a lawsuit challenging the mandate proceeds through the courts, according to the NY Times.
"The question is whether the State’s summary imposition of § 2.61 conflicts with plaintiffs’ and other individuals’ federally protected right to seek a religious accommodation from their individual employers," wrote Judge David N. Hurd, a Bill Clinton appointee.
"The answer to this question is clearly yes. Plaintiffs have established that § 2.61 conflicts with longstanding federal protections for religious beliefs and that they and others will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief," reads the 27-page ruling, which offers a reprieve for thousands of unvaccinated doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers who would have otherwise been fired or prevented from working on Tuesday if the ruling had gone the other way.
Hurd issued a preliminary injunction preventing the NY Department of Health from acting against any employer who grants religious exemptions, adding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their case.
"The Department of Health is barred from interfering in any way with the granting of religious exemptions from Covid-19 vaccination going forward, or with the operation of exemptions already granted," reads the ruling.
New York Governor Kathy M. Hochul indicated that the state would appeal.
"My responsibility as governor is to protect the people of this state, and requiring health care workers to get vaccinated accomplishes that," she said. "I stand behind this mandate, and I will fight this decision in court to keep New Yorkers safe."
In late-August, Hochul's administration overrode a religious exemption contained within former Gov. Cuomo's original vaccine mandate - prompting 17 healthcare workers to sue the state in federal court, claiming that the mandate conflicted with their religious beliefs "because they all employ fetal cell lines derived from procured abortion in testing."
"With this decision, the court rightly recognized that yesterday’s ‘front line heroes’ in dealing with Covid cannot suddenly be treated as disease-carrying villains and kicked to the curb by the command of a state health bureaucracy," said Christopher Ferrara of the Thomas More Society.
Tuesday's order technically extends an earlier temporary restraining order which applied to religious exemptions filed in mid-September onward - effectively allowing many healthcare workers to continue working even after the mandate went into effect.
In the federal case, titled Dr. A et al v. Hochul, the 17 health care workers argued that they could not consent to be inoculated with vaccines “that were tested, developed or produced with fetal cell lines derived from procured abortions.”
Pope Francis has said that Catholics may get the Covid-19 vaccines; most of the health care workers suing in the case are Catholic. But Judge Hurd did not question whether the health care workers were correct in their religious objections. Instead, he focused on their broader constitutional right to have their religious beliefs considered, and when possible, accommodated. -NYT
Now do cops, firefighters, teachers, and other professions.
Unvaccinated NYC Teachers Must Waive Right To Sue If They Want To Keep Health Benefits
Aside from being put on unpaid leave, New York City teachers who’ve declined to get the COVID-19 vaccine won’t be allowed to keep their health benefits for another year unless they give up their right to sue the city over its vaccine mandate.
The secret is not to refuse the vaccine.
This condition was the result of an arbitration invoked by the city’s largest teachers union, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT). The union touted the arbitration verdict as a victory that forced the city to acknowledge medical and religious exemptions to the vaccination. It also allowed the teachers to take a year of unpaid leave with continued health care coverage or voluntarily resign with unused sick days paid out and a year of continued health insurance.
But the UFT Sept. 10 press release on the issue left out the caveat that the health benefits would only continue beyond Nov. 30 for those who sign waivers preventing them from suing the city for getting fired. It did include a link to the arbitration verdict that, on page 17, states the waiver requirement. But several teachers told The Epoch Times the DOE only explicitly told them about the condition about a week ago, right before the mandate went into effect.
Based on last week’s data, several thousand teachers and other school workers remain unvaccinated.
An official with the city’s Department of Education (DOE) distanced the agency from imposing the waiver requirement.
“This stipulation was given out by a third-party arbitrator,” the official told The Epoch Times on the condition of anonymity. “Unions and DOE both agreed to it; DOE didn’t make this decision.”
But the arbitration verdict says its rulings “reflect” what the parties agreed to before and during the mediation as well as the “language” the parties agreed to in response to the arbitrator’s interim rulings.
It suggests that the conditions of the unpaid leave in particular were left to the parties to sort out.
“I concluded the parties are more familiar with Department [of Education] policy and how to leave and entitlements have been administered in accordance with prior agreements,” the arbiter said.
The ruling says the affected employees have from Nov. 1 to 30 to extend their leave and the connected benefits.
“An employee must file a form created by the DOE which includes a waiver of the employee’s rights to challenge the employee’s voluntary resignation, including, but not limited to, through a contractual or statutory disciplinary process,” it says.
It’s not clear how hard the union pushed against the requirement. It hasn’t responded to a request for comment.
The issue underscores the dissatisfaction of the unvaccinated teachers with both the city and the union. They feel justified in holding back on the vaccine and believe the city has tossed them aside and the union failed to protect them, according to several conversations between them and The Epoch Times.
The vaccines, developed in record time and still in the process of clinical trials, are known to cause severe side effects such as myocarditis, particularly in young men, and blood clots, though authorities and experts say these are rare and pose a lower risk than the disease itself. The vaccines don’t necessarily prevent one from contracting and spreading COVID-19, but clinical trials indicate they minimize symptoms, which are primarily a concern for the elderly or those with preexisting conditions.
Lawyers & Scientists Are Building A Case For Why Natural Immunity Should Be Treated Same As Vaccination
The answer to that question, they say, will depend - as all things COVID-related do - on "the science", that nebulous and frequently shifting concept of how prior infection impacts immunity to new variants (and whether vaccine's do as well).
According to a report in Yahoo Finance, the notion that natural immunity is superior is already gaining support in the legal world. Presently, a handful of studies from different countries offer a conflicting view of whether natural immunity actually is superior to vaccinated immunity, or a combination of prior infection and vaccination
Since it's likely the federal government's aim to roll out vaccine mandates that cover practically every US worker (they're not too far off already), the issue of natural vs. vaccine immunity and whether some individuals should receive exemptions based on their antibody levels almost certainly be adjudicated in the federal courts.
At least one attorney quoted by Yahoo agrees:
"I think that a judge might reject a rule that's been issued by a body, like the U.S. Department of Labor or by a state, that has not been sufficiently thought through as it relates to the science," Erik Eisenmann, a labor and employment attorney with Husch Blackwell, told Yahoo Finance.
As we reported when it was first published, a report out of Israel suggests that natural immunity could be many times more effective than the Pfizer vaccine at preventing infection with the delta variant. That study has yet to be peer-reviewed, however, and the world is anxiously awaiting the results.
However, another peer-reviewed study cited by the CDC looks at dozens of cases in the US where certain people who tested positive for COVID never ended up generating the antibodies, which, science dictates, are necessary to fend off future infection.
The CDC also published a study of 246 Kentucky residents, concluding that vaccination offers higher protection than a previous COVID infection. The CDC said the study went through a "rigorous multi-level clearance process" before submission, but now some are concerned it's slightly out of date since it pre-dates the rise of delta.
But as far as supporting natural vs. vaccinated immunity goes, this study is another big one: A C A June study by the Cleveland Clinic and Washington University tracked 52,238 Cleveland Clinic employees found that within 1,359 previously infected and unvaccinated people, none contracted a subsequent COVID-19 infection over the five-month study. The findings led authors to conclude that prior infection makes a person "unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination."
Then there's this:
In a smaller study conducted by Washington University School of Medicine and published in Nature, senior author Ali Ellebedy, Ph.D., an associate professor of medicine and of molecular microbiology, found antibody-producing cells in the bone marrow of 15 of 19 study subjects 11 months after their first COVID-19 symptoms. "These cells will live and produce antibodies for the rest of people’s lives. That’s strong evidence for long-lasting immunity,” Ellebedy said.
The legal and scientific standards are intertwined here, but as more data develops that appears to validate the argument that natural immunity is at least as effective as vaccinated immunity, it's more likely that lawyers will succeed in convincing judges that the standard should be "immunity by any means."
Indiana Parents Sue Governor Over Quarantining Healthy Kids
A group of parents in northeastern Indiana has reached their breaking point with government officials turning deaf ears to their children’s suffering under irrational and scientifically unfounded COVID rules with no clear end point.
After spending months trying to work with local officials to get their kids’ lives “back to normal,” only to have their school board allegedly break its own rules to mandate masks and quarantines of the healthy barely two weeks into this school year, four families filed a lawsuit against Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb (R), his Indiana State Department of Health and its commissioner, their county health commissioner, Northwest Allen County Schools and its superintendent, and their local school board and several of its members.
The lawsuit alleges these officials have broken state laws and the state and national constitutions by quarantine “searches and seizures” that violate the Fourth Amendment and repeatedly restricting Hoosier children’s constitutionally guaranteed right to a public education based on unproven allegations that the children are COVID-infectious.
“It used to be that if you missed 10 days of school you were truant. Now kids are missing 30-40 days of school”a year because of extreme quarantine rules, said Andrew Frisinger, a father and plaintiff in the lawsuit.
In recent weeks, the district has sent more than 1 in 10 students home to quarantine based on the state’s “close contact” standard. Nearly all of those children were healthy. The lawsuit seeks precise data about how many children forced to quarantine were actually sick, as the district has not released that information publicly.
Walking through school halls in the district where he grew up, met his wife, enrolls his kids, and has spent years volunteering as a coach for myriad sports, “felt like walking into a funeral” under COVID regulations, Frisinger said: “Lunchrooms are quiet, hallways are quiet. Teachers who should be teaching are now focused on masks. Five years ago, we would have said, ‘This is not America.’”
‘Arbitrary, Capricious, and Vague’
Even when children are allowed in school, their learning is undermined by a fear-driven and science-free mask mandate and other COVID fear structures that make it hard to see people’s facial expressions, make schools a joyless and oppressive environment, and turn teachers from educators into mask police, said the parents who filed the lawsuit in a group call with The Federalist.
They are deeply concerned that their children’s most recent three school years—one-quarter of their K-12 careers—have been constantly disrupted and for no health benefits. It is well documented that children are the demographic at least risk from COVID. Yet children are being denied the education crucial to their futures, with no end in sight.
“To me it feels like they’re holding our kids’ education hostage. You can have all this that your tax dollars are paying for if you follow this rule, this arbitrary mandate,” Frisinger said.
The parents spoke of the effects on their kids of never knowing if a school event or school itself would go forward as planned, of their own and their kids’ confusion that rules arbitrarily differ from school to school and county to county with no apparent relation to health outcomes, of patently ridiculous rules like having kids eat and play sports together without masks yet the same kids on the same day being forced to mask to get on the bus.
“Not being able to play sports for some of my kids has been very hard. My children had to be at home countless days because of this, which has affected their grades. My oldest suffers from hearing loss, so you can imagine how hard that’s been,” said Jacqui Christman, a mother of five and with her husband also plaintiffs in the suit.
Some of their kids who have never gotten in trouble at school before are now constantly in trouble for mask violations, and some don’t want to go to school at all because of the massive psychological pressure, the parents said. With kids safer from COVID than from all the other flus that have never altered school operations, why are the adults doing this to them? Nobody will answer that question or just about any other, the parents said.
“The challenged quarantine procedures and contact-tracing program lack any rational basis, are arbitrary, capricious, and vague, have no real or substantial relation to the objectives of the program or mandate, and violate the Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights,” says the lawsuit.
Parents: This Is Our Last Resort
After seeking relief through every other means they could think of—attending school board meetings, calling and emailing elected representatives, talking with administrators—for now three school years, the parents feel they have no other option but to file a lawsuit, said their lawyer, Kevin Mitchell. The parents repeatedly expressed that they considered this step a last resort after they spent years trying everything else and getting nowhere.
“These are healthy kids they’re quarantining,” said plaintiff Mike Bell, a father of four. “We know it may bring unwanted attention to us or our kids. But we’re three years into this and it’s not going away. We’ve been patient, and we’re just done. No one is listening, and they [elected officials] keep pointing the finger at someone else. So I’m choosing to stand up for my kids, and I believe kids everywhere, and I am proud to be fighting for our kids and doing what we feel is right.”
The families described themselves as not rich or powerful, as a “simple fireman,” teacher, volunteer coach, moms, and dads who represent the “simple majority.” They believe they represent the clear majority of parents in their district, region, and state, noting that when students and locals are allowed to choose whether to wear a mask almost none do. They started a GoFundMe to help with legal expenses (disclosure: after learning about the fund while reporting this story, this author donated).
Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Indiana state law defines under what circumstances people may be placed under effective house arrest with a quarantine, and that law has not been followed during the entire pandemic, notes the lawsuit. One of the law’s requirements is that people must be proven to be contagious before they are forced to stay home under threat of arrest.
Local school requirements based on 18 months of constantly shifting executive decrees, however, flip that on its head and assume children are sick if they spent a cumulative 15 minutes in a day near someone who later tested positive, the lawsuit notes. It says this violates citizens’ rights to live freely until proven, through due process, to have violated the law. This also violates the children’s right to an education, the lawsuit alleges, by subjecting children to unlimited 14-day quarantines even when they are not sick.
“The whole structure has shifted to students and families to prove they are well enough to go to school. As a legal matter, that is sobering, and we should consider that,” Mitchell said in an individual interview. “Compare it to the Fourth Amendment context—when it comes to a search, there has to be a legal cause. To tell a student you cannot attend school unless you disprove something, that constitutional right to attend school has flipped. And that’s a right under the Indiana Constitution.”
The lawsuit also makes a rare challenge to the governor’s emergency powers, alleging state law does not authorize Indiana’s governor to “mandate medical treatment or intervention, including face masks, in K-12 schools.” The emergency powers law states its limit is 30 days. Yet Holcomb has now unilaterally extended his emergency powers a record 17 times.
“The position the health agencies are taking is [that] we’re in this indefinite health emergency and even though life has continued in other avenues, the students should continue to live restricted while everyone else is not,” Mitchell said, noting that Hoosiers are working, eating out, shopping, going to professional sports games and festivals, and living normally, without masks, just about everywhere except school.
Are There Any Limits to ‘Emergency Powers’?
The lawsuit also alleges that the governor’s myriad COVID dictates—which he has issued at least biweekly for the past year and a half—usurp the legislature’s constitutional authority to write and pass laws. Legally, governors are supposed to carry out the laws the legislature passes, not effectively legislate through executive orders.
“Certainly the governor has emergency authority, so the question then becomes what constitutes an emergency under the statute?” said former Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill, a Republican, in a telephone interview. “It’s not a question whether an emergency occurred, the question becomes how long can you continue the process of the emergency and what is it you are authorized to do pursuant to that emergency?”
The state legislature has the authority to stop the governor’s lawlessness and end the state of emergency, Hill noted, but has for two years now left Hoosiers subject to arbitrary executive rule: “An emergency should only go so far, and at some point you want to enact legislative policy to direct people’s conduct. If there’s a reason to restrict the freedom of any Hoosier, that restriction should be subject to a legal exercise by the general assembly, those elected by the people.”
The office of the current state attorney general, Republican Todd Rokita, declined a request for comment on this case. Rokita has issued an opinion stating that in some cases state universities may force students to take COVID-19 injections.
The following request for comment was emailed to Holcomb’s press secretary, Erin Murphy:
Dear Erin,I’m wrapping up the story I called you about repeatedly several days ago, and it’s set to go live early next week. It’s about a lawsuit against the governor and his health department based on their school masking and quarantine rules as enforced in Northwest Allen County schools.I’m especially curious about the governor’s position on this contrasted with his statement condemning Joe Biden’s recent COVID mandates as ‘a bridge too far.’ I’d like to know what the governor sees as the main differences between his emergency rule and Biden’s emergency rulings, which appear to this layperson to be pretty indistinguishable.In addition, I would like to know the governor’s position on the limits of his claimed emergency powers — that he can legally keep renewing Indiana’s state of emergency indefinitely? If that’s the case, how does an ‘emergency’ last 18 months and when do Hoosiers get their rights back?I’m also curious about whether the governor has ensured that all the Biden-administration-approved Afghan refugees he’s welcomed into our state have gotten their COVID shots and whether they are being required to follow his health department’s quarantine and masking rules, or whether those are only applicable to American citizens.Thank you! If I don’t hear from you by Monday I will be including this email in my article in full.
Murphy declined to comment on this case, claiming, “We don’t comment on pending litigation.” A review of the last 12 months of press releases from Holcomb’s office, however, shows him publicly commenting on several events involving pending litigation, including the assassination of an Indiana police officer, the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol melee, state attorneys general opposing Biden’s vaccination mandate, and a lawsuit Holcomb filed to prevent the state legislature from restraining his emergency powers.
The next step in the lawsuit is for those sued to respond within approximately the next three weeks.
‘The pandemic is real, but children are neither victims nor vectors of this,” Frisinger said. “I just want to get back to normal, not only for the students but also for the staff we all support and love, and for the parents that are so confused right now.”
Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist, a happy wife, and the mother of six children. Her newest ebook is a design-your-own summer camp kit, and her bestselling ebook is "Classic Books for Young Children." Sign up here to get early access to her next full-length book, "How To Control The Internet So It Doesn’t Control You." A Hillsdale College honors graduate, @JoyPullmann is also the author of "The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids," from Encounter Books.
Indiana Parents Sue Governor Over COVID Rules: ‘These Are Healthy Kids They’re Quarantining…And We’re Just Done’https://t.co/KX9FIbnWKy
— The Federalist (@FDRLST) September 27, 2021
Biden NIH Director Gets Grilled Over Booster Shot Program
It was not a fantastic weekend for members of the Joe Biden administration as they traversed the talk show circuit and were hit with some tough questions.
Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace took on NIH director Francis Collins and laced into him about Biden’s plan for vaccine boosters after it was shot down by the FDA.
“Do you now agree with them on this limited booster program over what the president was proposing last month, the general population getting boosters, which he said was based on advice from his medical experts, including you?” Wallace said, but Collins fought back.
“You know, Chris, I think there’s less difference between where we were in the middle of August and what the advisory committee said this past Friday. They did encourage and vote for the administration of boosters to people over 65 and those at high risk of exposure,” the director said.
“Those are the people who would be most likely to reach that eight-month period, because that’s how we prioritized initial immunizations back in January. So, I don’t think there’s huge differences here. I think the big news is that they actually did approve the initiation of boosters, and remember, they are taking a snapshot of right now.
“We’re going to see what happens in the coming weeks. It would surprise me if it does not become clear over the next few weeks that that administration of boosters may need to be enlarged. Based upon the data that was already seen both in the U.S. and in Israel, it’s clear the waning of the effectiveness of those vaccines is a reality, and we need to respond to it, but they looked at where we were on Friday and said here’s where the data is convincing to start now and we’ll see what CDC says later this week,” he said.
Wallace asked the director if he does “still think we are going to near booster program for everyone?
“I’m not sure about absolutely everyone. We’ll have to see what they say ultimately about the youngest individuals because of concerns about benefits and risks, but I will be surprised if boosters are not recommended for people under 65 going forward in the next few weeks, but we’ll wait and see. You know, Chris, what you’re seeing here is science playing out in a very transparent way. This is the way it ought to be. I’m a little troubled that people are complaining that the process isn’t working for them. The process is to look at the data, have the experts consider it and then make their best judgments — at that point, recognizing that the judgments may change. If people want an absolutely authoritative statement about here’s the right answer — well, that’s not what our country is all about. Move to China, you’ll get it there,” he said.
But Wallace pressed on, using Biden’s own words against him.
“Back during the campaign, he talked a lot about ‘follow the science,’” he said. “Isn’t announcing a specific date, and a specific plan, for the general population before any of the regulators — the FDA, the CDC — have approved it, isn’t that the exact opposite of ‘follow the science?’”
States Begin Suing Joe Biden of Vaccine Mandates
I joined @seanhannity last night to lay out our plan to lead from the front and stop Joe Biden’s unlawful mandate. I will use all my authority and power as Governor to defend and protect our citizens. pic.twitter.com/pVR9Z73yF4
— Kristi Noem (@KristiNoem) September 10, 2021
Here is a list of states that will be suing Biden — Alaska, West Virginia, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Iowa, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Arizona.
Biden’s unconstitutional order is part of a war on working-class Americans, threatening their wallet if they do not comply. It is the worst possible way to grow confidence in the vaccine, and beyond that it is wrong. We will use every tool to stop it. pic.twitter.com/bT0nMCuntx
— Tate Reeves (@tatereeves) September 10, 2021
It is not the government’s role to dictate to private businesses what to do.
— Governor Kevin Stitt (@GovStitt) September 9, 2021
Once again President Biden is demonstrating his complete disregard for individual freedoms and states’ rights.
As long as I am governor, there will be no government vaccine mandates in Oklahoma.
Biden’s vaccine mandate is an assault on private businesses.
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) September 9, 2021
I issued an Executive Order protecting Texans’ right to choose whether they get the COVID vaccine & added it to the special session agenda.
Texas is already working to halt this power grab.https://t.co/TwoQMhDxoM
State AGs, including WV, will not tolerate such blatant & illegal federal overreach from @POTUS.
— Patrick Morrisey (@MorriseyWV) September 10, 2021
Buckle up America— our President is the opposite of a unifier in chief.
Looking forward to seeing more details about Biden’s wild vaccine proposal. We’ll protect WV & America.
Joe Biden told Americans when he was elected that he would not impose vaccine mandates. He lied.
— Ronna McDaniel (@GOPChairwoman) September 10, 2021
When his decree goes into effect, the RNC will sue the administration to protect Americans and their liberties. pic.twitter.com/XinwFw4bam
Federal Judge Blocks Forced Vaccination for Medical Personnel in NY
A federal judge has blocked the state of New York from forcing medical workers to be vaccinated after a group of healthcare workers sued the state, including the governor, the health department, and others, claiming their constitutional rights were violated.
Judge David Hurd in Utica issued the order on Tuesday. Several litigants, including doctors and nurses, claimed their First Amendment rights were violated by a vaccine mandate, which does not allow for religious exemptions.
For the last seven weeks, New York radio talk show host Shannon Joy has been rallying the medical community in Rochester and huge groups of health professionals have been marching outside the University of Rochester Medical Center every week, speaking out against what they say is medical tyranny in the form of vaccine mandates.
According to the lawsuit, “The plaintiffs herein are medical professionals whose sincere religious beliefs compel them to refuse vaccination with the available COVID-19 vaccines, all of which employ aborted fetus cell lines in their testing, development, or production.”
Rochester, NY: 1,000 STRONG TODAY! #RallyForMedicalFreedom pic.twitter.com/QxAVq5WyA6
— Shannon Joy (@ShannonJoyRadio) September 13, 2021
Rochester, NY: The Peaceful Revolution BEGINS!
— Shannon Joy (@ShannonJoyRadio) September 13, 2021
Last week we had 700 in attendence.
Today we'll have 1000!
This brought me to tears.
See you all today at 4pm at 601 Elmwood Avenue. Please SHARE SHARE SHARE!#RallyForMedicalFreedom @SteveDeaceShow @RMConservative pic.twitter.com/VinqaWTl9D
Firefighter Shortages if Vaccine Mandate Doesn't Get Dropped
sick until proven health is no less tyrannical than guilty until proven innocent
— Osler (@osler78) September 2, 2021
Some firefighters have told their unions they won’t abide by Gov. Inslee’s mandate to get vaccinated. The WA State Council of Firefighters warns about not having enough firefighters, paramedics, and EMTs if the policy does not change. #waleg
— WA Senate Republicans (@WashingtonSRC) August 27, 2021
Read: https://t.co/5uAo3pEbNc pic.twitter.com/PVm7lmxdI9
Moderna Covid-19 Vaccine Halted in Japan, Contamination, Fire Fighters FIGHT BACKhttps://t.co/pPyfAELx6q
— Rapid_GT99 🏁🏎️💨💨💨 👀 (@rapidgator99) August 26, 2021
ICYMI - Oregon Vaccine Mandate Could Lead to Mass Exodus of Firefighters and Paramedics Across the State https://t.co/K2M4fL116V
— Thomas Paine (@Thomas1774Paine) September 2, 2021
More than 200 employees of Gainesville, Florida, have filed a lawsuit seeking to strike down the city's requirement that its workers receive COVID-19 vaccines or be fired, saying it violates their constitutional rights. https://t.co/Fk4MNYNDhO
— Reuters Legal (@ReutersLegal) August 30, 2021
More than 200 employees of Gainesville, Florida, have filed a lawsuit seeking to strike down the city's requirement that its workers receive COVID-19 vaccines or be fired, saying it violates their constitutional rights. https://t.co/Fk4MNYNDhO
— Reuters Legal (@ReutersLegal) August 30, 2021
More than 200 employees of Gainesville, Florida, have filed a lawsuit seeking to strike down the city's requirement that its workers receive COVID-19 vaccines or be fired, saying it violates their constitutional rights. https://t.co/Fk4MNYNDhO
— Reuters Legal (@ReutersLegal) August 30, 2021
More than 200 employees of Gainesville, Florida, have filed a lawsuit seeking to strike down the city's requirement that its workers receive COVID-19 vaccines or be fired, saying it violates their constitutional rights. https://t.co/Fk4MNYNDhO
— Reuters Legal (@ReutersLegal) August 30, 2021
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Popular Posts (All Time)
-
Table of Contents Introduction: Stress, Smoking, and Health The Normotim Effect: A New Hope in Stress Management Lithium Ascorbate:... -
The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has been linked to mental health issues related to disease-induced morbidity and mortality and ... -
Former Hunter Biden business partner Tony Bobulinski has confirmed that an email published in the New York Post's bombshell exposé is ... -
A group of virologists in February 2020 published a letter in The Lancet stating they “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus origina...
-
SAMPLE LETTER BELOW 🚨🚨🚨 The secret is NOT to refuse the Jabb.... From a lawyer: If you are being forced to Vax in order to keep your job,...
-
The time is now. As most readers of this substack are now well aware, this is not just about COVID. The Constitution hangs in the balance. P... -
Klaus Schwab's World Economic Forum Government & WHO Lies Tucker & Malone Discuss The World Economic Forum & It's Young ...
-
Comment to ACIP meeting of August 30, 2021 submitted by Steve Kirsch - Executive Director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund stk@treatea... -
2 Sources for this story below . . . Justin Bieber reveals he has Ramsay Hunt syndrome Twitter suspended the VaccineTruth2 account Want to ... -
Crimes Against Humanity - The PCR Test Fraud and COVID-19 will be the Case of the Century Reiner Fuellmich - Update on Court Case & P...
