ICYMI – Plaintiffs accuse school board of an “arbitrary and capricious” vaxx mandate. School board sends lawyer who does not plead ignorance – simply demonstrates it – confounding the judges

Edit - the students are not subject to a vaxx mandate - just the teachers.

From here:

9th Circuit Judges ‘Shocked’ and ‘Floored’ by LAUSD’s Ongoing Covid-19 Vaccine Mandate for Employees – California Globe

“In July 2021, as the case was working its way through the system, LAUSD represented to our attorney and in a brief filed with the court, that there ‘is no mandate’ and that LAUSD had no intention of issuing a mandate. The court accepted this representation in dismissing the case as not ‘ripe’ on July 27, 2021. Thus, if there is no mandate, the lawsuit is not ripe.”

“Seventeen days later LAUSD issued a COVID vaccine mandate,” Manookian said.”

Hence the appeal.

Dr Been has taken hours to transcribe the hearing as the sound quality was poor. He does an excellent job going over the two way between the four judges and the moron claiming to be an attorney representing the school district that imposed the mandate.

You can view the plaintiffs lawyers 31 minute presentation here:

22-55908 Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. v. Alberto Carvalho - YouTube

It is well worth watching just to see the looks on the judges faces as they struggle to come to terms with the crass and rank stupidity of the school’s attorney – trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

From the California Globe article:

“Michaels argued rather lamely that the courts have to give the state the right to decide. She further argued that unless it has been established that the injection does not work, LAUSD has the right to mandate it.

HFDF notes that that fact has been quite clearly proven not only in the scientific literature, but in the real world.”

The school was offering 5,000 dollar signing bonuses to inexperienced teachers – presumably woke LBGTQ++ sympathisers -  fresh from teacher training, to replace those teachers it fired.

The school considered that the vaxx mandate was satisfied for those injected two years ago for the old virus, which was no longer circulating, hence offering zero protection – but those unvaxxed who also had zero protection were sacked and other experienced teachers were barred from being hired.

Some of the questions asked by the judges are here:

“When LAUSD’s counsel, Connie Michaels, addressed the panel, the judges peppered her with questions,

Does it matter whether the shot stops transmission?

If the shots don’t stop transmission, what’s the argument for them?

Is there any law anywhere that qualifies Jacobson? [Jacobson is a lawsuit brought to the US Supreme Court in 1905, which will be explained in further detail below.] – explainer here: “One limit to state power is the judges’ assertion that Jacobson’s whole rationale was that a vaccine must have a public health benefit. Another point they made is that any justification LAUSD may have had for a vaccine mandate would have waned by now.”

What is the rational basis for saying that a vaccine mandated three years ago continues to work today?

What if LAUSD is still requiring the shot twenty years from now, when there is no emergency?

How did the school district come up with the premise that it doesn’t matter whether the shot is effective or not?

My favourite question was “Does this mandate exist in any other place?” To which the pretend attorney said “I don’t know” -well, not quite ,she cited one school! I think vaxx mandates do existin many places and is being enforced in other schools and universities.

Hopefully, the judges do not have to deliberate too long as the schools case has no merit. I guess the issue will be if the judges have the authority to tell the school to reinstate the sacked staff and reimburse them in full for lost pay and benefits – as just happened in a similar “arbitrary and capricious ruling in a New York court for many city workers!

Onwards!

Please buy a subscription or donate a coffee (I drink a lot of coffee) - “God Bless You!” if you can’t or don’t want to contribute. Coffee donations here: https://ko-fi.com/peterhalligan - an annual subscription of 100 bucks is one third less than a $3 coffee a week!