Posted on 11/01/2021 4:30:13 PM PDT by ducttape45
In Liberty Counsel’s class action lawsuit against Joseph R. Biden, the U.S. Secretary of the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the federal court in Florida ordered the defendants to submit an extensive verified list of information regarding COVID shots and the military by November 12.
Liberty Counsel represents members from all five branches of the military, federal employees, and federal civilian contractors who have been unlawfully mandated to get the COVID shots or face dishonorable discharge from the military or termination from employment.
In preparation for Navy SEAL 1 v. Biden, Judge Steve Merryday has ordered the defendants to file a “precise statement of the number of requests in each branch for a religious exemption from injection of a COVID-19 vaccine; the number of requests granted, denied, and pending; the number of persons in the armed forces who are unvaccinated and who have submitted no request for exemption; the number of persons whose application is resolved and who have received some change in the terms and conditions of their service, including separation of any kind; and the categories of results that have occurred and how many of each kind of result has occurred.”
In addition, the court ordered the Department of Defense to submit: “(1) the procedure by which a service member applies for a religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination requirement, including a copy of any form for, and any instructions for, applying for an exemption and a copy of any form used to grant, deny, or otherwise resolve the application; (2) the procedure for resolving the request, including the identity (by rank, position, or the like; a person’s name is not required) of the person or persons who initially resolve the request; (3) the criteria by which the identified person or persons will resolve the initial application, including the standard of proof the factual allegations of the application must satisfy before approval of the application; (4) the procedure, including the forms, the persons empowered to decide at each level, the standard of proof, and the like, for each opportunity available to a service member to obtain review of, and request reversal or modification of, an unsatisfactory (to the service member) resolution of the application (this statement must describe each level of available review to and including exhaustion of the available remedies); (5) the procedure for and alternatives for punishment following the denial of an application and the exhaustion of available review; and (6) any policy under active consideration (by any branch of the United States armed forces or any defendant) to alter or amend the substance and procedure described in response to (1) through (5) of this paragraph and effective before June 1, 2022.”
The plaintiffs all hold sincere religious beliefs against the COVID shots on the basis that their body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and to defile it is a sin against God. In addition, the plaintiffs do not want to participate directly or indirectly or otherwise be associated with the destruction of human life through abortion by injecting a product that contains or was tested or developed with aborted fetal cell lines. The plaintiffs have all submitted religious exemption requests from a COVID-19 injection which have been unlawfully denied.
The COVID shots cannot be mandatory under the federal Emergency Use Authorization law, and the plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion is protected by the First Amendment. In addition, their free exercise of religion is protected under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Regarding RFRA, the Supreme Court wrote, “That statute prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion unless it demonstrates that doing so both furthers a compelling governmental interest and represents the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Because RFRA operates as a kind of super statute, displacing the normal operation of other federal laws, it might supersede Title VII’s commands in appropriate cases” (emphasis added).
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Liberty Counsel looks forward to our day in court against Joe Biden’s unlawful COVID shot mandates. The Biden administration has no authority to require the COVID shots for the military or for federal employees or civilian contractors. Nor can the Biden administration pretend that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment do not apply to its unlawful mandates. Forcing the COVID shots without consent or consideration for their sincere religious beliefs is illegal.”
Vaccine Mandate PING List.
If I’m not mistaken, this case also includes Federal Workers. To my knowledge, they have been given no guidance on how to apply for an exemption.
The Army numbers will be suppressed for civilians because the Form 3176 and 3177 haven’t even been published yet.
TRANSLATION: STALL TACTIC that benefits team deep state by allowing them to continue their military mandate madness for even longer due to "homework" that delays a decision in this case.
Especially what he requested in 2 and 3.
Right now, every command is making it up as they go and pillion git out of their a$$.
A relative of mine on active duty was asked to sign a counseling statement that had not even been updated with the correct service member name and information. If you read the info on the statement it actually instructed commanders how to threaten and bully people into taking the vax. The part was supposed to be deleted but someone slipped up.
We are in such a mess!
The 3175 is easy enough, but the form they want us to fill out has several "gotcha" questions on it that many of us feel uncomfortable answering. So we're trying to figure out how to answer them. Those questions, and my answers, are:
1. Please describe the nature of your objection to the COVID-19 vaccination requirement.
See attached letter, “Vaccine Exemption Letter - Kelley, Byron J” for that explanation.
2. Would complying with the COVID-19 vaccination requirement substantially burden your religious exercise? If so, please explain how.
See attached letter, “Vaccine Exemption Letter - Kelley, Byron J” for that explanation.
3. How long have you held the religious belief underlying your objection?
I have been a Christian since 1981. That is how long I’ve held the Christian belief underlying my objection.
4. Please describe whether, as an adult, you have received any vaccines against any other diseases (such as a flu vaccine or a tetanus vaccine) and, if so, what vaccine you most recently received and when, to the best of your recollection.
I have no recollection of receiving any vaccines other than what was given to me during my military service, 1982 thru 1992, the common flu shot, which was NOT developed or tested using fetal tissue/stem cells.
5. If you do not have a religious objection to the use of all vaccines, please explain why your objection is limited to particular vaccines.
I have a Christian objection to receiving any vaccine that was developed and tested using fetal tissue/stem cells.
6. If there are any other medicines or products that you do not use because of the religious belief underlying your objection, please identify them.
N/A – Question not relevant.
7. Please provide any additional information that you think may be helpful in reviewing your request.
I know this will seem a bit bold on my part, but I know these questions are designed as “gotcha questions,” used to find some way of denying this request. Given that, there are some things you need to know.
First, I will not sign the template that Civilian Personnel provided. I’ve been advised that my letter is sufficient for your needs.
Second, Questions 3, 4, 5 & 6 are legally invalid.
According to guidance received from Liberty Counsel:
Employees may have religious accommodation requests stating their sincerely held religious beliefs injecting any of the three currently available COVID-19 vaccines would be a sin and a violation of their religious beliefs because they are manufactured and produced with, tested on, or otherwise developmentally connected to aborted fetal cell lines.
Many employers have responded to employee submissions with intrusive and irrelevant questions about employees’ past personal health decisions and the theological bases for those decisions, or demands that employees vet their religious beliefs about COVID-19 vaccines with a third party to justify their accommodation requests.
The premises of these questions—that an employee’s current request for religious accommodation must be consistent with the employees’ prior health decisions and religious understandings, or must be acknowledged by a person other than the employee—are legally invalid premises for deciding religious accommodation requests, and any denial based on such premises violates Title VII.
In addition, according to guidance received from Liberty First Legal:
PAST VACCINATIONS DO NOT NEGATE A PRESENT OR FUTURE RIGHT TO DECLARE EXEMPTION. This is probably one of the most popular fallacies. Courts recognize that people can change and grow in their faith beliefs and understandings. Just because you got a vaccination in the past does not eliminate your right to assert a religious exemption now or in the future.
Lastly, according to Avoidthevax legal representatives:
1. It does not matter how new your belief is, or how long you’ve believed as you do.
2. It does not matter whether you have vaccinated in the past if you were not aware that such vaccines utilized aborted fetal cell lines or other religious objections at the time you received the vaccine. You may have decided afterward that it was wrong and unethical to capitalize on aborted baby parts, no matter how new the decision or tenuous the connection may be to the vaccine.
3. If you have not lived out your sincerely held religious beliefs with perfection this does not disqualify you from raising a Title VII accommodation request. Nobody lives out their beliefs with perfection, nor can your sincerely held beliefs be invalidated for failure to live them out with perfection.
What do you all think? Please make any suggestions you feel can assist. Thanks.
Why not get to the constitutionality of such mandate?
Still waiting on the courts to figure out that. Nov 15th is the date that Liberty Counsel will be in a FL civil court. But we already have the injunction filed last Friday in DC so I don’t know why they are still pushing this, other than they plan to ignore the courts now that the courts are ruling against the mandaters!
See US vs Ballard and US vs Seeger. Up you may believe what cannot be proven, and you cannot make someone prove their beliefs as they may be incomprehensible to others.
As of last week the procedure for evaluation of exemption requests did not exist and a date was not given for when it would be issued.
It makes sense that part of the Communist plot to take over the country would be to destroy the military. This is one way of doing it.
Stall tactic. This will amount to nothing.
The judge is a communist sympathizer if not an outright communist. He is running out the clock.
Discoveryfor the DoD is going to be a bitch.
DoD will have a a real mess on their hands in complying with discovery demands. It will take many months and DoD will not want to provide the names of those making the decisions on the language for the exemption paperwork; and all the revisions; plus all the phone logs, emails, minutes of meetings, chain of command involvement, etc.
After that, it will be time for requests for admissions, follow requests for admissions, followed by depositions. High ranking officials hate being deposed because they are so easy to trip up.
Then there will be discovery and depositions of the medical personnel. They really don’t like being deposed, especially when the will be hammered by all the evidence about major adverse effects.
Liberty Counsel has major respect in most Federal Courts, and especially the Supreme Court.
I’m waiting but the clock is ticking and they are running out of time. It is not about LC anyway that I make my complaint, it is the court. The deck is stacked and the game is rigged. The tune is being called by the mother ship in DC.
Very good points. I wonder if this is all part of the plan to prolong the mandates, pushing the date back with all of these procedural issues.
I’d remove the “Question not relevant.”. The goal is to get the exemption approved. That phrase you use seems like you’re poking the bear. Poke the bear after the exemption is approved.
I think that you are missing what accommodation you are seeking. The whole premise of any request for exemption is can the employer accommodate your request. IMO working offsite, masking (not that I agree masks work), testing (temp. check is the protocol at medical and dental practices from my recent experiences), segregated work area, etc. are possible accommodations. Just not getting the vax probably won’t make it unless a court makes a ruling soon.
You might consider going a little heavier on the EEOC regulations. Look here for some good information https://www.natlawreview.com/article/eeoc-updates-religious-accommodation-and-vaccine-mandate-guidance
I am still on the fence about submitting an exemption and probably won’t do so until the very last day, if I do. You are spot on with the “gotcha” comment.
One of the reasons an employer can deny a religious request is based on an employee’s lack of consistency. Since no employer tracks this aspect of each employee, they are trying to lead you into presenting an inconsistent case. #6 is where they are attempting to prove inconsistency. You response - Question not relevant - may not be the best. Recommend considering something like “I have no knowledge of any medications or products that I currently use that violate my faith. Be assured that I will be consistent in my manner and cease use of any medication or product that I discover in the future that I deem unholy.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.