Federal Vaccine Mandates Found Not Immune to Challenges- Roundup

Lots of good stuff has been happening on in the courts in the last couple of weeks.

5th Circuit's order in BTS Holding v. OSHA on 11-12, enjoining the OSHA mandate.

Judge Winsor's order on 11-12, rejecting the claim rejected a claim by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine being administered under Emergency Use Authorization is interchangeable with Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine.

Judge Merryday's order on 11-22, requiring the military branches to provide information about exception grants on a schedule to prove the exception grant process is not "a ruse."

Biden Administration's kicking of  the can on the federal employee mandate out until January.

Judge Schelp's order on 11-29, enjoining the federal healthcare worker mandate in 10 states. 

Judge Doughty's order on 11-30, enjoining the federal healthcare worker mandate in all other states.

Judge Tatenhove's order on 11-30, enjoining the federal contractor mandate in 3 states.

Hopefully one of the challenges to the federal employee mandate turns the corner soon. I am aware of 12. 

1. Brnovich v. Biden, filed by Attorney General of Arizona, on 9-14, No. 21-1568 (D. Ariz.) ("Defendants’ imposition of vaccine mandates on U.S. citizens and lawfully employed aliens, but not on unauthorized aliens at the border or already present in the United States, constitutes discrimination on the basis of national origin and alienage in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.") See his 10-22 motion for TRO ; Order granting leave to file amended complaint and new motion for preliminary injunction 11-10; Amended Complaint;  Motion for Preliminary Injunction 11-19; 
2. GREGG COSTIN, et al. v. Biden filed by Michael Yoder on 9-23 (D.C.), 1:21-cv-02484
3. Foley v. Biden, filed by David Foley and Daniel Flickinger on 9-29 (Northern District of Texas)  4:21-cv-01098-O, See Defendant's Response, the Judge's Order, and Plaintiff's Response to that Order, and Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion; Plaintiff's second motion to amend and draft amended complaint; Defendant's request for extension of time to file answer to original complaint in light of potential amendment 11-22;  Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's request for extension 11-23; Defendant's Reply re extension of time 11-24; Order granting motion for extension in part 11-29
4. Navy Seal, et al v. Biden filed by Liberty Counsel on 10-15 (Middle District of Florida) 8:21-cv-02429; Order denying prelim injunction, deferring judgment in part (military only), and ordering information about exemption requests provided on schedule (military only); Defendant opposition to class certification and exhibits 12-3
5. ALTSCHULD ET AL v. RAIMONDO et al  (D.C.) filed by the Federal Practice Group on 10-19,   1:2021cv02779, Defendant Response to motion for preliminary injunction ;exhibits11-3; Order denying preliminary injunction 11-8
6. Rydie et al v. Biden et al Employee A v. Biden, filed by Jonathan Bolls on October 19, 2021 (Maryland) 8:2021cv02696, see motion for TRO; Biden response in opposition 11-12; Plaintiff Reply; Order Denying TRO 11-19
7. Church v. Biden, filed filed by Michael Yoder on 10-24 (D.C.)1:21-cv-02815, as reported by Under Cover DC; Plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order;  opposition from the Defendants; Plaintiff's Response 11-3; Memorandum Order denying preliminary injunction 11-8
8. Smith v Biden, 1:21-cv-19457-CPO-SAK filed 10-29 (NJ); brief in support motion for injunction with exhibits; opposition to motion for injunction 11-5; Reply to motion in opposition 11-6;  Order denying injunction 11-8; 
9. AFGE Local 501 et al v. Biden et al filed by Mark Berkowitz on behalf of AFGE Local 501 and Council of Prison Locals CPL 33 on 10-30 (Southern Florida) 1:21-cv-23828-JAL, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order denying preliminary injunction (11-15) 
10.  James Joseph Rodden, et al. v. Dr. Anthony Fauci, et al. filed by John J. Vecchione, Jenin Younes, and Harriet Hageman of New Civil Liberties Alliance and Robert Henneke of Texas Public Policy Foundation on November 5, 2021 (Southern District of Texas) 3:21-cv-00317; Defendant's response in opposition to motion for preliminary injunction, exhibits; Plaintiff's reply and exhibit; Order denying injunction 11-27-21
11. Payne v. Biden, filed by Reed Rubinstein for America First Legal Foundation on November 22, 2021 (D.C.)  1:21-cv-03077; Plaintiff's motion for Summary Judgment (Nov 24); Memo in support of motion for summary judgment
12.  AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COUNCIL OF PRISON LOCALS 33 and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES LOCAL 2018 v. DIRECTOR KIRAN AHUJA, JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Attorney General MERRICK B. GARLAND and LLOYD AUSTIN, filed by Bruce L. Castor, Jr. Michael T. van der Veen on behalf of Council 33 and Local 2018 on November 23, 2021 (E.D. Pa) 2:2021cv05172

I keep the list updated here: https://laborrelated.blogspot.com/2021/10/list-of-law-suits-filed-by-federal.html

Staying true to its Arbitrary Roots, Federal Employee Mandate takes December Off, mostly

As reported by the Federal Times, the White House is said to have delayed enforcement of the mandate until "after the holiday season" for most federal employees.

The move was announced by the partial release of an email sent from OPM/OMB/SFWTF leaders to agency heads. In the email,

“Given that tremendous progress, we encourage your agencies to continue with robust education and counseling efforts through this holiday season as the first step in an enforcement process, with no subsequent enforcement actions, beyond that education and counseling and, if warranted, a letter of reprimand, for most employees who have not yet complied with the vaccination requirement until the new calendar year begins in January,” Ahuja and Miller wrote.

“We understand that your agencies may need to act on enforcement sooner for a limited number of employees, such as where there are additional or compounding performance or workplace safety issues under consideration, but in general, consistency across government in further enforcement of the vaccine requirement after the start of the new calendar year is desired,” they added.

Who is that? Sounds like they are talking about probationary employees but don't want to say it. Possibly employees whose PIPs are running out. But would they really want to complicate a performance discharge with the mandate? Possibly. Or possibly they just don't want to admit that they have made a wholescale change to the mandate.

Whatever their intentions, by moving the deadline to January, the Administration has made the mandate even more arbitrary, if that is possible. Perhaps it is like multiplying against zero over and over again and it doesn't get "more arbitrary." I am not sure.

In any event, by January 2022, those employees who first became "fully vaccinated" in January 2021 will no longer have any claim to an immunity advantage over the rest of us. Pfizer and the FDA admitted that, whatever it does, the stuff wears off in six months. After a year, there is nothing left. We know this from Israel. We know this from Ireland. We know this from Gibraltar which has had serious outbreaks after achieving 100% "vaccination." 

So, the real question is when is the definition of "fully vaccinated" going to change to having your third, fourth, and fifth shots. That is where this is headed. My guess is that change will occur in January. Before they have even resolved the administration, let alone the litigation, of the first round of the mandate, they will be coaxing the good sheep to stay good and get their boosters. 

If you have taken your shots already, you need to ask yourself when you decided to continue taking tri-monthly mRNA treatments  for the rest of your life. It is not too late to get off this train. Before you take your next injection, do yourself a favor and read RFK Jr.'s book The Real Dr. Fauci and also seek out sources that attempt to debunk it. After all, your next shot could be your last. 

Omicron and the Spinning of Fear

It's like they aren't even trying anymore. Emergency declarations are made by states. Dire warnings given. But if you take the time to actually read about the big, bad Omicron...it is described as "mild."

From Reuters:

Coetzee, who is also on the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Vaccines, said unlike the Delta so far patients have not reported loss of smell or taste and there has been no major drop in oxygen levels with the new variant.

Her experience so far has been that the variant is affecting people who are 40 or younger. Almost half of the patients with Omicron symptoms that she treated were not vaccinated.

 The most predominant clinical complaint is severe fatigue for one or two days. With them, the headache and the body aches and pain.

That sounds exactly like what I had on 11/5. I had fatigue, low fever on the first night, and a bad headache for a couple of days. My back muscles felt like I had overdone it on a rock climbing wall or rowboat or something. Two days and two Motrin later, I was fine (I did confirm my positive Covid results through both over-the-counter and through-the-counter methods).

So, we should all be super scared because it is so mild or something.

Also, it is incredible how the spin factory never stops spinning.

Why would you possibly phrase a sentence this way?

Almost half of the patients with Omicron symptoms that she treated were not vaccinated.

They use syntax to try to confuse the issue at every turn. The better way to phrase that would be as follows:

More than half of the patients with Omicron symptoms that she has treated had been vaccinated.

But wait a minute, vaccines are supposed to make you not get the virus.  But this admission contradicts that and it should be concerning to vaxx hoax believers. It should be even more concerning if you consider that less than 30% of South Africans are "vaccinated." 

So, more than half of Omicron patients come from the minority of the South African population that has been injected....and the symptoms for both groups are mild. Therefore, everyone panic and get injected with everything available. If you have had two shots, get a third. If you have had all three of Pfizer, get a J&J as well. Get the Moderna too. Get them all again and again until you die. Only way to beat this mild threat is to be fully vaccinated.

via GIPHY

Federal Agency Vaccination Rates

You know that we are dealing with a smoke and mirrors operation when they play little tricks at every turn. On Wednesday (Nov. 24), the Administration selectively published vaccination rates for certain federal agencies or departments.  The numbers were posted amidst a very "rah, rah, this is going great" narrative. It is kind like if Andrew Jackson advocates had spun it as "Great news, 90% of federal officials are on board with pledging their loyalty to the new president," instead of shrugging at the purge of the 10% with the motto, "to the victor go the spoils."

Since the numbers release was a P.R. post (not an act of transparency to inform the public) they didn't mention the lowest vaccinated agencies or positions. For instance, I'd like to know the "vaccination" rate for federal prison guards. I assume they would have a particularly low rate because two prison guards locals are the only federal unions to have broken rank with the jab-scabs injection-pushing AFGE national. The thing about prison guards is that they have been doing their jobs since the pandemic began. They have witnessed Covid outbreaks and mass "vaccinations" on controlled populations. Go ahead and try to tell those guys the side effects aren't so bad.

But selective publication and lack of transparency is only part of the smoke and mirrors. The funnier part is that rather than just tell the public what they interested in--"vaccination" rates--they instead introduce the new concept of "compliance" which includes both those who have been injected with these toxin-creating products and those who have requested exceptions from them. The only employees not listed in the "compliance" column are those stoic souls who have simply refused to take this poison and not even requested an excuse. By this trick, the Administration groups most of those who are fighting its edict (those seeking exceptions) with those who have actually complied, conflates them as the same, and claims it is a success. This is like some weak sales trick to get you to look at a different number than the one you are interested in. "The car starts 92% of the time. 5% of the time it doesn't start for reasons that we know. Only 3% of the time does it fail to start for unknown reasons...So, the starts for this car are 97% understood, great car."   Hey, press, here is your headline, "99% are compliant!" Even the complaint press wasn't going to make that the headline, although they did go over the compliance rates in their coverage, and thus assisted the Administration in distracting from the issues.

*Edit, here is an outlet called the Federal New Network that really jumped the shark with this for the Administration: Headline Federal agencies close to 100% compliance with vaccine mandate as enforcement begins; and here is the Daily Caller taking the bait or carrying the water: Federal Government Has 96.5% Compliance Rate With Biden’s Vaccine Mandate, According To Administration (pathetic propaganda)*

In any regard, here are the "vaccination rates" released on Wednesday (I have reordered the columns so that "vaccination" appears before "compliance" and sorted them by "vaccination" rate) .

No surprise that the elephant in the room went unaddressed: how many have been given exceptions?

One surprise for me is the EPA which has 8% of employees unvaccinated and 5% out of compliance (i.e. the stoics who are not asking for an exceptions). After reflection, I should not have been surprised though. EPA scientists understand important things like statistics, toxins, and regulatory capture, and they are experts at sifting through scientific lies and obfuscations (Robert F. Kennedy Jr's excellent book The Real Anthony Fauci gets into the similarities in fields).  

On another note, I imagine that the 10% of NASA employees who are rejecting the injections have pretty firm grips on statistics and the scientific method and aren't going to be easily persuaded by the low level propaganda we see coming out of the CDC and news outlets.

 

I would really like to know the percentage of FDA employees who are not taking the Kool-Aid. Unfortunately, they are lumped in with HHS and unknown to we of the outer circles and FOIA is a very slow process.

The Dog that Doesn't Bark and the Defense that is not made - Exception Process is Ruse

As discussed in my last post, the military's record for approving religious exception requests is somewhat of a running joke. You can count the number of exceptions they have granted with a donut.

Per Judge Merryman: 

 "Whether characterized as a facial challenge or as a class of precisely similar as applied challenges, requiring only a single judicial determination, the plaintiffs’ contention is — based on current data — quite plausible that each branch’s procedure for requesting a religious exemption is a ruse that will result inevitably in the undifferentiated (and therefore unlawful under RFRA) denial of each service member’s request. Particularly, the data produced by the defendants show that more than 16,643 requests for a religious exemption pend. The military has granted no exemptions but has denied hundreds. This disparity, although susceptible to a benign explanation is, as well, susceptible to an explanation actionable and remediable under RFRA."

Which got me to thinking about federal employees. About 10% of the federal workforce or 175,000 employees are said to have pending exception requests. How many have been approved? I know of none. I have  read most of the filings in the 12 cases that have been filed against the Government since the EO was issued. One thing that I have noticed is that the Government frequently argues that claims are not ripe because exceptions for plaintiffs might yet be granted, but it never points to the grants that it has made. There was a mention of one in Church v. Biden, but when you look at the complaint a little bit, it looks like the purported grant there is disputed. If there was a grant, the Government is apparently trying to take it back. See discussion of Special Agent Hallfrisch at page 14 of the complaint. I don't know quite what to make of the Special Agent Hallfrisch situation, but if the Government is "trying to take it back," I will not count it as an accommodation.

 In response to my own motion for preliminary injunction, On October 5, 2021, the Government noted that the NLRB had already received requests from other NLRB employees on September 25, 2021 and September 28, 2021. I replied that it would be more assuring if the Government could have written that those requests had been granted.

Here we are two months after the first NLRB employee put in his or her request. How long does it take for a group of federal managers to evaluate the sincerity of one's beliefs? 

Given that the Government never points to all of those employees to whom it has granted exceptions, I think we can see in this absence the "dog that doesn't bark" and deduce that, like the military, the civilian agencies have not given any exceptions.

"Watson, what would a ruse look like?"