What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

judge tells COVID vaccine jabbers to put up or shut up

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,892
Reaction score
1,080
Points
200
See: DARRIS FRIEND V CITY OF GAINESVILLE . . . Case No. 01-2021-CA-2412

15. If the government fails to put on evidence of its compelling state interest, as the City failed to do here, the Court is not required to (and, in fact, cannot) make factual findings that the government has any compelling state interest. Green, 2021 WL 2387983 at 3 (“When the government fails to offer evidence to demonstrate a compelling state interest, the trial court then is absolved of having to make any finding to that effect”). In the instant case, the City failed to put on any evidence that the Vaccine Mandate serves a compelling state interest or that the Vaccine Mandate was the least restrictive means to accomplish that interest.*

16. The City’s Vaccine Mandate facially interferes with its employees’ right to refuse unwanted medical treatments and/or procedures, implicates Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to privacy, and is “presumptively unconstitutional.” Gainesville Woman Care, LLC., 210 So. 3d at 1245; and Green, 2021 WL 2387983 at *5.

and see . . .

21. In other words, having determined that the City’s Vaccine Mandate implicates Plaintiffs’ privacy rights (and with no showing of a compelling interest demonstrated by the City), this Court is required to presume that the Plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated the four elements required for this Court to order the requested injunctive relief: likelihood of success on the merits, lack of an adequate legal remedy, irreparable harm, and the public and private interests at stake. Id.*

22. Therefore, the Court ENJOINS Defendant City of Gainesville, as follows:*
a. The City shall not enforce the Vaccine Mandate policy.*
b. The City shall not terminate or discipline any employee for failure to comply with the Vaccine Mandate.*

23. The Court determines that, giving due regard for the public interest, no bond is required to be posted, pursuant to Rule 1.610(b).*

24. This injunction will continue in force until further order of the Court.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at the Alachua County Family & Civil Justice Center, *
Gainesville, Florida on Wednesday, September 22, 2021
Monica Brasington, Circuit Judge


Now, perhaps a covid vaccine jabber will demonstrate how the law furthers a compelling state interest in the least restrictive way —also known as the “strict scrutiny” standard. Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State, 210 So. 3d 1243, 1252-1253 (Fla. 2017); see also, Green v. Alachua County, 2021 WL 2387983 at *3.

JWK




“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
16,322
Reaction score
1,988
Points
290
Location
N/A
See: DARRIS FRIEND V CITY OF GAINESVILLE . . . Case No. 01-2021-CA-2412

15. If the government fails to put on evidence of its compelling state interest, as the City failed to do here, the Court is not required to (and, in fact, cannot) make factual findings that the government has any compelling state interest. Green, 2021 WL 2387983 at 3 (“When the government fails to offer evidence to demonstrate a compelling state interest, the trial court then is absolved of having to make any finding to that effect”). In the instant case, the City failed to put on any evidence that the Vaccine Mandate serves a compelling state interest or that the Vaccine Mandate was the least restrictive means to accomplish that interest.*

16. The City’s Vaccine Mandate facially interferes with its employees’ right to refuse unwanted medical treatments and/or procedures, implicates Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to privacy, and is “presumptively unconstitutional.” Gainesville Woman Care, LLC., 210 So. 3d at 1245; and Green, 2021 WL 2387983 at *5.

and see . . .

21. In other words, having determined that the City’s Vaccine Mandate implicates Plaintiffs’ privacy rights (and with no showing of a compelling interest demonstrated by the City), this Court is required to presume that the Plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated the four elements required for this Court to order the requested injunctive relief: likelihood of success on the merits, lack of an adequate legal remedy, irreparable harm, and the public and private interests at stake. Id.*

22. Therefore, the Court ENJOINS Defendant City of Gainesville, as follows:*
a. The City shall not enforce the Vaccine Mandate policy.*
b. The City shall not terminate or discipline any employee for failure to comply with the Vaccine Mandate.*

23. The Court determines that, giving due regard for the public interest, no bond is required to be posted, pursuant to Rule 1.610(b).*

24. This injunction will continue in force until further order of the Court.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at the Alachua County Family & Civil Justice Center, *
Gainesville, Florida on Wednesday, September 22, 2021
Monica Brasington, Circuit Judge


Now, perhaps a covid vaccine jabber will demonstrate how the law furthers a compelling state interest in the least restrictive way —also known as the “strict scrutiny” standard. Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State, 210 So. 3d 1243, 1252-1253 (Fla. 2017); see also, Green v. Alachua County, 2021 WL 2387983 at *3.

JWK




“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story
By preventing its citizens from dying?
 

The Original Tree

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
32,821
Reaction score
10,700
Points
1,410
Location
OHIO

White 6

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
16,972
Reaction score
9,560
Points
1,140
I figure recommendations toward public health are good and should be made. At the same time, they have the right to mandate as far as their own employees, if they think it improves their organizational effectiveness, lowers their liability or enhances their ability to service the public.
Putting a mandate on private employers to require vaccination (making the determination the government's interests are more important, taking the decision of how private business manage their employees in ways with potential to interfere in their personal decisions outside the workplace) is a non-starter.
 

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
94,698
Reaction score
24,867
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,892
Reaction score
1,080
Points
200
Nazism doesn't prevent citizens from dying.

Quite the opposite.

I wonder how many fully vaccinated, who are unknowingly carrying a viral load and spreading it, there are.

I wonder how many who have acquired natural immunity, and are covid free, have been discriminated against by government mandates and deprived of enjoying public accommodations.

JWK

The Chinese Communist Party is counting on America’s Fifth Column media [MSNBC, NEW YORK TIMES, CNN, WASHINGTON POST, ATLANTIC MAGAZINE, New York Daily News, Time, ETC.], and their Yellow Journalists, to delude the American people.
 

Crepitus

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
55,361
Reaction score
17,995
Points
2,260
See: DARRIS FRIEND V CITY OF GAINESVILLE . . . Case No. 01-2021-CA-2412

15. If the government fails to put on evidence of its compelling state interest, as the City failed to do here, the Court is not required to (and, in fact, cannot) make factual findings that the government has any compelling state interest. Green, 2021 WL 2387983 at 3 (“When the government fails to offer evidence to demonstrate a compelling state interest, the trial court then is absolved of having to make any finding to that effect”). In the instant case, the City failed to put on any evidence that the Vaccine Mandate serves a compelling state interest or that the Vaccine Mandate was the least restrictive means to accomplish that interest.*

16. The City’s Vaccine Mandate facially interferes with its employees’ right to refuse unwanted medical treatments and/or procedures, implicates Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to privacy, and is “presumptively unconstitutional.” Gainesville Woman Care, LLC., 210 So. 3d at 1245; and Green, 2021 WL 2387983 at *5.

and see . . .

21. In other words, having determined that the City’s Vaccine Mandate implicates Plaintiffs’ privacy rights (and with no showing of a compelling interest demonstrated by the City), this Court is required to presume that the Plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated the four elements required for this Court to order the requested injunctive relief: likelihood of success on the merits, lack of an adequate legal remedy, irreparable harm, and the public and private interests at stake. Id.*

22. Therefore, the Court ENJOINS Defendant City of Gainesville, as follows:*
a. The City shall not enforce the Vaccine Mandate policy.*
b. The City shall not terminate or discipline any employee for failure to comply with the Vaccine Mandate.*

23. The Court determines that, giving due regard for the public interest, no bond is required to be posted, pursuant to Rule 1.610(b).*

24. This injunction will continue in force until further order of the Court.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at the Alachua County Family & Civil Justice Center, *
Gainesville, Florida on Wednesday, September 22, 2021
Monica Brasington, Circuit Judge


Now, perhaps a covid vaccine jabber will demonstrate how the law furthers a compelling state interest in the least restrictive way —also known as the “strict scrutiny” standard. Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State, 210 So. 3d 1243, 1252-1253 (Fla. 2017); see also, Green v. Alachua County, 2021 WL 2387983 at *3.

JWK




“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story
It's a temporary injunction. The state still gets to present a case.

Also, were talking about Florida here.
 

The Original Tree

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
32,821
Reaction score
10,700
Points
1,410
Location
OHIO
Can you qualify the Kung Fu Flu as a Pandemic if after 2 years it has only killed 0.16% of the global population, and is no deadlier than Swine Flu, or any other new strain of flu that comes out each flu season?

Can you call anything that allows 99.2% of people who contract it to fully recover, a Pandemic?
 

airplanemechanic

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
13,460
Reaction score
7,426
Points
1,065
By preventing its citizens from dying?

If it wanted to prevent its citizens from dying it would ban cigarettes this afternoon and close all roads tomorrow as cigs kill 480,000 people per year and cars kill 50,000,
 

EvMetro

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
6,638
Reaction score
3,996
Points
970

EvMetro

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
6,638
Reaction score
3,996
Points
970
I figure recommendations toward public health are good and should be made. At the same time, they have the right to mandate as far as their own employees, if they think it improves their organizational effectiveness, lowers their liability or enhances their ability to service the public.
Putting a mandate on private employers to require vaccination (making the determination the government's interests are more important, taking the decision of how private business manage their employees in ways with potential to interfere in their personal decisions outside the workplace) is a non-starter.
What do you think of the court findings described in the opening post?
 

EvMetro

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
6,638
Reaction score
3,996
Points
970
It's a temporary injunction. The state still gets to present a case.

Also, were talking about Florida here.
The state has to have evidence as described in the opening post. What evidence do you think they will submit?
 

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
94,698
Reaction score
24,867
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
The state has to have evidence as described in the opening post. What evidence do you think they will submit?

We know what evidence they will submit...

"ORANGE MAN BAD"
 

EvMetro

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
6,638
Reaction score
3,996
Points
970

Crepitus

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
55,361
Reaction score
17,995
Points
2,260
The state has to have evidence as described in the opening post. What evidence do you think they will submit?
I think they mistakenly assumed the judge would be a reasonable, intelligent human being and the case would be tossed. Now they will have to present a case.
 

EvMetro

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
6,638
Reaction score
3,996
Points
970
I think they mistakenly assumed the judge would be a reasonable, intelligent human being and the case would be tossed. Now they will have to present a case.
This is court, and there are still a few places where marxism alone is not enough to win on. You need evidence. What evidence do you think they should or will submit? Is this the kind of question where you will need to evade answering?
 

White 6

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
16,972
Reaction score
9,560
Points
1,140
What do you think of the court findings described in the opening post?
My opinion is if they are the direct employer they should be able to set policies in the interests of the entity that writes the paychecks. Where I draw the line is with forcing other employers to force the issue. Employees can always quit and go seek their paycheck somewhere else if they do not like the policies in place over them and I encourage them to do so.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,892
Reaction score
1,080
Points
200
My opinion is if they are the direct employer they should be able to set policies in the interests of the entity that writes the paychecks. Where I draw the line is with forcing other employers to force the issue. Employees can always quit and go seek their paycheck somewhere else if they do not like the policies in place over them and I encourage them to do so.
You may be overlooking what is called "reasonable expectation".

A person works for a company for, say 15 years and nears retirement, and does so under specific rules agreed to by both parties. And then, 15 years down the road the employer decides to demand the employee follow a newly created rule or get fired and lose their expected retirement agreement.

This of course raises the reasonable expectation argument: is the new rule reasonable to the degree that would justify the employee losing their expected retirement plan, and void the employee/employer agreement which happens to be an issue for the court to decide.



Of course, an employer who mandates such an intrusive medical decision [get vaccinated or be fired] upon their employees should, at the very least, be able to justify the soundness and necessity of such a rule.



Do you not agree?



JWK
 

White 6

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
16,972
Reaction score
9,560
Points
1,140
You may be overlooking what is called "reasonable expectation".

A person works for a company for, say 15 years and nears retirement, and does so under specific rules agreed to by both parties. And then, 15 years down the road the employer decides to demand the employee follow a newly created rule or get fired and lose their expected retirement agreement.

This of course raises the reasonable expectation argument: is the new rule reasonable to the degree that would justify the employee losing their expected retirement plan, and void the employee/employer agreement which happens to be an issue for the court to decide.



Of course, an employer who mandates such an intrusive medical decision [get vaccinated or be fired] upon their employees should, at the very least, be able to justify the soundness and necessity of such a rule.



Do you not agree?



JWK
Not unless it can be evidenced the rule was put into place to effect that exact purpose of limiting retirement liability of the company or organization. If that be the case, screw them and force full vestment and projected returns to the employee, as if they had made it to the 20 year mark or whatever time period prior to age 65 at which they would be fully vested.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$132.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top