Posted on 10/18/2021 2:33:36 PM PDT by ducttape45
Liberty Counsel filed a class action lawsuit Oct. 15, 2021, against Joseph R. Biden, Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security on behalf of members from all branches of the military, federal employees and federal civilian contractors. The lawsuit is regarding unlawful COVID vaccine mandates that result in dishonorable discharge or termination of employment if refused.
Since this has been filed as a class action lawsuit, people have been inquiring about joining or being named in the suit. That option is not yet available as certification of the class action is still pending.
Until then, Liberty Counsel motioned for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction on behalf of the plaintiffs "against the Defendants’ enforcement of the unconscionable, unconstitutional, and unlawful Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate that all United States Armed Forces service members, civilian federal contractors accept or receive a COVID-19 vaccination in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs."
Why are the TRO and preliminary injunction needed in this case?
Equitable in nature, both TROs and preliminary injunctions are court orders requiring a person to do or cease doing a specific action. They can be issued by the judge early in a lawsuit to stop the defendant from continuing his or her course of action to prevent possible injustice and irreparable harm to the plaintiff. It is an extraordinary remedy that courts utilize in special cases to alter or maintain the status quo, depending on the circumstances.
In this case, a TRO or preliminary injunction could put a temporary halt on vaccine mandates nationwide for the three categories of plaintiffs named in the lawsuit: military, federal employees and federal contractors.
Liberty Counsel has stated that injunctive relief is appropriate. The plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Religious Freedom of Restoration Act and First Amendment claims against the Federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate, as well as the claim that the mandate violates the EUA provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
"An injunction against Biden and his administration would apply nationally to all three categories in the lawsuit—everyone in the military, federal workers and federal civilian contractors," says Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. "A win on Count One [upholding provisions under the Emergency Use Authorization law] will impact everyone nationwide to have the option to accept or refuse the shots."
Bookmark ❣
Yes indeed... the hired by and Pfired pentagon mil types who aid their “contracting”.
So sick of this crapola. Mil-industrial- and now medical COMPLEX Eisenhower warned about. We never learned.
Pfizer’s marketing plan is and was to make the fedgov their business “partner” so they can be “sole source” vendor for large contracts... like.... vaccines they didn’t pay a cent to develop.... or to deliver. Imagine the margins made.
A federal worker can.
Can the military speak at a political rally in uniform?
A federal worker can.
Does the military have a 401k?
A federal worker does.
Does the military have to reach a certain rank to keep his job?
A federal worker does not.
Does the military have their retirement benefits messed with?
A federal worker does not.
Military is not the same as a federal employee.
Yup, a nice deal Pfizer arranged for a cut of the humungous defense budget.
Why are you arguing with me about this here? I know what I know, so just knock it off ok? It’s not important.
And no one can be allowed to be wrong on the internet.
It violates all the rules.
Liberty Counsel has a great record representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against government agencies; even better against school districts. They don’t charge their clients, and rely on contributions and legal fees in cases they win; and they win almost all of them.
Lock BiXiden and his top level minions up.
Thank you, this is excellent news!
Please keep me on your ping list.
“And, those that violate the constitution, should be punished,...”
It is my understanding that one must prevail in their initial case, otherwise what basis is there for punishing anyone? Of what are they to be found guilty should your first complaint be found wanting?
However, should the court find in your favor, that ruling forms the basis for follow-on criminal and/or civil filings against the involved parties.
I fear if you expect the Supreme's to help you, you are going to be severely disappointed.
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.