L. A. Conflict in the School City Loses Court With Professionals Who Refused The Jab

The Los Angeles Unified School District( LAUSD ) needs to conduct some in-depth soul-searching.

For rejecting the COVID vaccines, LAUSD coldly fired about 500 education teachers while also” displacing” hundreds more neighborhood employees. Then, LAUSD audaciously sought to recover more than$ 200,000 in attorneys’ fees from the fired employees and other plaintiffs, as if violating its employees’ constitutionally protected religious beliefs and individual medical needs wasn’t harm enough.

LAUSD had the audacity to assert that the cause defending the employees’ legal privileges is” silly” in its speed to the United States District Court requesting legal fees.

On April 3, 2023, the court issued its one-sentence ruling: “For reasons stated by Plaintiff, the Motion is Denied.”

Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF), California Educators for Medical Freedom (CAEMF), and several individual plaintiffs sued LAUSD when it mandated the COVID vaccines for all employees on August 13, 2021.

In the complaint the plaintiffs argued that COVID injections are therapeutics, not vaccines, as they do not prevent infection or transmission. This is not an empty assertion as on July 27, 2021, CDC revised guidance stating that COVID injections do not stop transmission or infection of the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2.

This point is critical as the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled in Cruzan vs. Director in 1990 that medical treatments may be refused even if they might save a recipient’s life.

However, this ruling has never been reconciled with a 1905 decision by SCOTUS in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, in which the court decided that vaccines could be mandated in clearly defined and limited situations, such as a deadly smallpox outbreak. But COVID is not smallpox. What’s more, Jacobson allowed those who declined the vaccine to pay a fine — Jacobson did not allow the state to force a vaccine on unwilling recipients on pain of losing their livelihoods.

It’s’s important to note that Jacobson was decided in 1905, a very different era from our own. Ladies were not allowed to vote in 1905, and Jim Crow laws were in place. Since then, as evidenced by the Nuremberg Code, the UNESCO Declaration on Human Rights, and Bioethics, which acknowledge the morality of volunteer informed consent, our respect for fundamental human rights has grown.

However, the U.S. District Court granted LAUSD’s’s motion for assessment on the petitions, stating that” the Court declines to adopt case law applying strict investigation in cases of forced medical treatment to the COVID – 19 vaccine environment” without further assistance from the Ninth Circuit.

In other words, the jury stated that HFDF et al. could not act in our pursuit without receiving approval from a higher court. have made a 9th Circuit appeal, and they are very optimistic about the future.

However, LAUSD has a history of acting unethically. Despite federal law’s’s explicit requirement that EUA products be voluntary, it mandated the Emergency Use Authorization ( EUA ) COVID vaccine for all employees in early 2021.

On March 17, 2021, the Health Freedom Defense Fund ( HFDF ) assisted CAEMF and several other people in bringing their first lawsuit against LAUSD, challenging the mandate. The mission was revoked by LAUSD the following weekend.

In a brief filed with the jury in July 2021, as the case was progressing through the legal system, LAUSD argued that there” is no authority” and that it had no intention of issuing one. On July 27, 2021, the court dismissed the case as not” juicy” after accepting this picture. ( Ripeness is a legal term that stipulates that harm must have already taken place before legal action may be taken. ) Therefore, the cause is not ready if there is no authority.

However, LAUSD just changed its mind 17 years ago and on August 13, 2021, a COVID vaccination mandate was issued.

Therefore, HFDF, CAEMF, and various plaintiffs once more filed a lawsuit to challenge LAUSD’s’s vaccine requirement. When LAUSD asserted that there” is no mandate” in the first case, we found that it had not been completely honest with the District Court.

Ileana Davalos, the general human resource officer of LAUSD, testified during the second case that” they were drafting a mission in the first quarter of July 2021 ,” proving that the agency had not been telling the truth about the demands with the court in earlier cases.

LAUSD is a repeat offender who has violated the constitutional rights of its employees, mandated an EUA material, and lied to both the plaintiffs’ attorney and the court in order to protect those employees’ protected rights.

Fortunately, LAUSD’s’s most recent attempt to intimidate HFDF, CAEMF, and its staff was exposed by the court when it denied trying to get the defendants to pay attorneys’ prices.

Ideally, the court will also acknowledge LAUSD’s’s pessimistic behavior pattern.

The founder and president of the Health Freedom Defense Fund is Leslie Manookian.

The opinions expressed in this essay are the author’s’s alone and may not reflect those of The Daily Wire.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases