UC Students v Vaccine Mandates Case

UC Students v Vaccine Mandates Case

UC Students Vaccine Mandate Case

Re: Legality of Vaccine Mandates as a condition to study at the University of Cincinnati

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

aka: Benjamin Lipp, et al. v. University of Cincinnati

  • Dates: filed 12/10/2021
  • Location: Hamilton County, Ohio USA
  • Court: Common Pleas Civil Court
  • Case #: A 2104238
  • Plaintiff: Benjamin Lipp, et al.
  • Defendant: University of Cincinnati
  • Trial Type:
  • Judge: Leslie Ghiz
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: TBD


 

Background

Calling it a civil rights issue designed to check a university’s abuse of power, Akron-based Mendenhall Law Group filed a lawsuit against the University of Cincinnati (UC) and its board of trustees over the school’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. (4)

The action was introduced in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas on Wednesday and includes four plaintiffs: students Benjamin Lipp, Danielle Seymore, Katelyn Verbarg and Nicholai Lekson. Warner Mendenhall and Kyle Wenning are representing the plaintiffs. (4)

The plaintiffs all were students at University of Cincinnati. Three of the plaintiffs had received exemptions from the school’s vaccine mandates. One of the plaintiffs met the vaccination requirement but he objects to the University’s mandatory vaccine policy and the possibility of having to receive a booster shot to stay in school. (1)

Multiple students told The Ohio Press Network (OPN) that they have received coercive emails from UC officials, and those who have questioned the mandate have been subject to derogatory remarks, including “you freedom people are annoying.” (4)

Lipp, who is also a plaintiff, is 24 and a senior majoring in finance. He points out that the virus has a more than 99% survival rate for Ohioans in his age range and the vaccine does not prevent transmission or infection of the virus.

“Even as an unvaccinated student, I have low risk of dying from COVID, and I’ve had the virus, so that puts me in a different class because of my natural immunity,” he explained. “If someone else is vaccinated, why do I need to be vaccinated?”

His personal opinion aside, Lipp said that he chose to join the lawsuit as a plaintiff because he believes university officials are violating his rights.

“You don’t have to have an opinion on COVID-19 to agree with the lawsuit. It’s not about whether or not masks and the vaccine works. It’s about public officials not acting within legal authority,” Lipp said. “If they can get away with this, what else will they try? This lawsuit is important because it is designed to hold them accountable.”

In September, UC instituted a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for students, faculty and staff. Students were required to show proof of at least one dose of the shot by October 15 and two doses of the inoculation by November 15. (4)

The mandate applies to students and university employees who visit campus for class or work, and individuals who use campus facilities. Medical and religious exemptions to the vaccine requirement can be requested, according to the mandate. (4)

Students who do not comply by January 3 will be unenrolled from spring semester classes. Weekly testing is required between November 15 and January 3 for anyone not in compliance with the mandate. (4)

The website also includes: “The university will consider disciplinary measures in accordance with established policies for faculty and staff who are not fully vaccinated or have not been granted an exemption before the beginning of spring semester. Discipline for represented employees will proceed in accordance with agreed-upon processes currently being discussed with their collective bargaining units.” (4)

OPN (the Ohio Press Network) was provided with numerous emails obtained by a public records request that show UC officials attempting to implement their COVID-19 vaccine mandate despite the passage of HB 244, which was signed into law by Gov. Mike DeWine and became effective on October 13. (4)

The legislation prohibits Ohio public schools from requiring vaccines not yet approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). HB 244 also says that public schools cannot discriminate against people not vaccinated by mandating that they perform different activities from their vaccinated counterparts. Schools covered by the bill include state colleges and universities along with public schools, joint vocational school districts, college-prep boarding schools and STEM schools. (4)

 

Significance

This case covers multiple issues including discrimination, abuse of power and government over reach, illegal mandates, sovereignty of their own bodies, and the veracity of the Covid and Inoculation narrative

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

According to the lawsuit filing, “this is a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief involving the statutory and constitutional validity of UC’s vaccination and health measure mandates effective Sept. 1, 2021.

“By reason of Ohio Revised Code 3709.212 and Ohio case law, the defendants lack authority to order those not diagnosed with a disease or have not come into direct contact with someone who has not been diagnosed with a disease to wear masks, undergo testing or limit their activities.”

The filing adds that the mandate also violates Ohio Revised Code 3792.04 because UC is a state school of higher education and is “discriminating by requiring plaintiffs to engage in or refrain from engaging in activities or precautions that differ from the activities or precautions of an individual who has received a vaccine that has not been fully approved by the FDA.”

The school’s vaccine mandate violates revised code 3792.04. The mandate violates Article I, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution in that it violates Plaintiffs’ right to refuse medical treatment. The Mandate violates R.C. 2905.12 to the extent that it coerces Plaintiffs from taking or refraining from actions over which they should have legal freedom by choice, by taking, withholding or threatening to take or withhold official action. (1)

 
“One of the things we have seen across the country is exactly what we are pointing out in this lawsuit, that authorities are stepping outside the bounds of their authority,” Mendenhall said. “That equals an abuse of power, and it’s happening at federal, state and local level and at colleges and universities. Our lawsuit is designed to check the abuse of power.
 
“We have autonomy in our medical-decision making,”… “It is unprecedented that a university would require an experimental medical procedure on students or masking.

“We are waking up to the fact that the COVID-19 injection is not stopping spread,” … “Those who get the shot do not provide protection to anyone else. It is absurd that people are mistreated because they choose to not get a shot.” He noted that natural immunity is overlooked and it can be at least six times stronger than the vaccine.

“We would like [university officials] to end all mandates and not treat people differently,”

 

Defendant’s Argument

???

 

Decision

TBD

 

Aftermath

???

 

 

Media

IU students file lawsuit over vaccine mandate

source: WHAS11

Judge halts vaccine mandate in 10 states

source: Fox News

Pfizer Vaccine Effectiveness Analyzed

source: Canadian Covid Care Alliance


Back to All Cases

 

Missouri Ends Lockdown Case

Missouri Ends Lockdown Case

Missouri Ends Lockdown Case

Re: Legality of Covid Lockdowns & Emergency Measures

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

aka: Shannon v. Missouri Department of Health

  • Dates: Nov 22, 2021
  • Location: Cole County, Missouri, USA
  • Court: Cole County Circuit Court of Missouri
  • Case #: 20AC-CC00515
  • Plaintiff: Shannon Robinson, et al.
  • Defendant: Missouri Department of Health
  • Trial Type:
  • Judge: Daniel Green
  • Status: End
  • Verdict: For The Plaintiff

 

Background

“A group of St. Louis-area residents and business owners filed against the state Department of Health and Senior Services to challenge” covid restrictions (2)

St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones and County Executive Sam Page in July issued a joint mask order that required people to wear face coverings in indoor public spaces. (2)

St. Louis County’s mandate for face coverings in public spaces has been the target of a lawsuit from the state attorney general and a source of contention among politicians and residents. (2)

 

Significance

  • This Case effectively “ended ALL the state’s Covid measures” (1)
  • Cole County Circuit Judge Daniel Green ruled that orders such as quarantines and business closures violate the Missouri Constitution’s separation of powers clause affecting the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.(3)

  • The circuit court judge “declared a Missouri law that enables local health departments to issue public health orders unconstitutional and is ordering officials to lift such rules.” (2)

  • The ruling by Cole County Judge Daniel Green calls into question the future of mask mandates and other local health orders created to stem the spread of the coronavirus. (2)

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

. (1)

 

Defendant’s Argument

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt represented the state in the suit. (2)

 

Decision

  • “This case is about whether Missouri’s Department of Health and Senior Services regulations can abolish representative government in the creation of public health laws, and whether it can authorize closure of a school or assembly based on the unfettered opinion of an unelected official,” the judge wrote in his ruling. “This Court finds it cannot.” (2)
  • The Court found that the Department of Health’s regulations CANNOT “abolish representative government in the creation of public health laws,” and CANNOT “authorize closure of a school or assembly based on the unfettered opinion of an unelected official.” (1)
  • The Court didn’t just find a technical reason to set aside the DOH’s emergency rules. Instead, the Court found that the ORIGINAL state statutes giving the DOH its emergency authority were themselves completely invalid, for four separate reasons, because the statutes: (1)
  1. violate constitutional separation of powers
  2. violate the state’s administrative procedure act
  3. are inconsistent with other public health laws; and
  4. violate constitutional equal protection. 

 

“[DOH] regulations break our three-branch system of government in ways that a middle-school civics student would recognize, because they place the creation of orders or laws, and enforcement of those laws, into the hands of an unelected official.” (1)

The Court cited a 2020 Michigan Supreme Court case (1):

“It is incumbent on the courts to ensure decisions are made according to the rule of law, not hysteria … One hopes that this great principle — essential to any free society, including ours — will not itself become yet another casualty of Covid-19.” (1)

 

  • The Court found that the Missouri emergency health statutes were constitutionally flawed because they create “double delegation.” The judge said the state had delegated rulemaking power to the DOH, which then delegated “broad rulemaking power to an unelected official.” This type of double delegation, said the Court, “is an impermissible combination of legislative and administrative power.” It also explained that the regulations “violate the principle of separation of powers by unlawfully placing unguided and unbridled rulemaking power in the hands of a public official.” (1)
  • The judge cited, among other cases, Florida’s lawsuit against the CDC’s “conditional sailing order.” Relying on the cited cases, he listed all the ways that the state’s public health statutes violated separation of powers:(1)
  1. the statutes created “open-ended discretion—a catch-all to permit naked lawmaking by bureaucrats;”
  2. the laws failed to provide any STANDARDS to guide local emergency orders;
  3. the laws not only provided no standards, but they are “limitless, standardless, and lack adequate legislative guidance;”
  4. the laws fail to “provide any procedural safeguards for those aggrieved by the orders;” and
  5. they “create a system of statewide health governance that enables unelected officials to become accountable to no one.”

 

  • The judge wrote that plaintiff Robinson had produced “ample evidence” that local health supervisors used the emergency health laws to “exercise unbridled and unfettered personal authority to, in effect, legislate.”(1)

The judge stated: 

“Local health directors have created generally applicable orders, both in writing and verbally, requiring individuals within their jurisdictions to wear masks, limit gathering sizes in people’s own homes, creating capacity restrictions, limiting usage of school and business facilities including tables, desks, and even lockers, mandating spacing between people, [and] ordering students be excluded from school via quarantine and isolation rules created by health directors based on masking or other criteria not adequately” constrained by legal standards.(1)

  • The Court held that the statutes’ authorization of local health directors to create and enforce their own orders, and take other “control measures” were “unconstitutional and … therefore invalid.”(1)

The judge concluded:

“[t]his system is entirely inconsistent with representative government and separation of powers and makes a mockery of our Missouri Constitution and the concept of separation of powers.”….“Missouri’s local health authorities have grown accustomed to issuing edicts and coercing compliance. It is far past time for this unconstitutional conduct to stop.”(1)

 

  • The Court’s actual orders were:
  1. among other things, the judge instructed the Secretary of State to “remov[e] the invalid regulations from the register” — which effectively deletes all the state’s emergency public health statutes. (1)
  2. He also ordered the Missouri DOH to “provide a copy of this order to all local health authorities throughout Missouri, and to post it … in locations where the same is made publicly available[.]”(1)
  3. Then he ordered the Department of Health to pay all the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees.(1)

 

Aftermath

  • St. Louis County government attorneys have determined the ruling does not affect its rules, since it is not involved in the case, county spokesman Doug Moore said. (2)

“St. Louis County is not a party to that lawsuit,” Moore wrote in a statement. “The next hearing in the St. Louis County mask case is Nov. 30. We hope everyone will follow the masking and social distancing practices that public health experts recommend over the Thanksgiving holidays.” (2)

  • In St. Louis, city lawyers think the ruling does not apply because the city’s health orders were not enacted under the rule that was overturned, a representative for Jones said. The city is operating under the legislature’s June law requiring legislative bodies to pass a mandate every 30 days and the city’s charter gives the Board of Aldermen the authority to enact health orders by resolution once they are issued. (2)

“In short, our opinion at this point is that the ruling out of Cole County does not apply to us because we weren’t operating under that rule that was overturned,” said Nick Dunne, the mayor’s spokesman in a voicemail. (2)

 

  • A spokesman for Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt who represented the state in the suit said: “We’re aware of the Court’s ruling and are prepared to enforce compliance with the Court’s order across the state,” (2)
  • It would be unusual for the attorney general not to appeal this ruling, said James R. Layton, a former state solicitor general. (2)

“I can’t think of an instance in the past where a declaration that a regulation was invalid was not appealed, especially one that would have this broad of impact,” ….The ruling does not necessarily mean every health mandate enacted by a local government is void….“The judge has ruled that the Department of Health and Senior Services regulation that expressly gives local health authorities the ability to act, that that regulation is invalid,” Layton said. “But I really don’t know how many of the regulations that are currently in place were implemented in reliance on that authority.”(2)

  • Local government advocates said the ruling sets a worrying precedent.

“We are concerned about the erosion of local authority in many areas, including public health,” said Richard Sheets, executive director of the Missouri Municipal League, the statewide group of local government officials. “Our city officials are split on mask mandates … [but] what we do oppose is the state taking away a locally elected governing body’s authority to make local decisions.” (2)

 

Further Research

 

Media

……

source: ….

….

source: ….


Back to All Cases

 

LAUSD Vaccine Mandate Case

LAUSD Vaccine Mandate Case

LAUSD Vaccine Mandate Case

Re: Legality of LA School District to Mandate vaccines to staff as condition of employment

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Nov 03, 2021
  • Location: Los Angeles, California, USA
  • Court: Central District of California Western Division
  • Case #: 2:21-cv-08688-SB-MAA
  • Plaintiff: HFDF, CAEMF & others
  • Defendant: LAUSD
  • Trial Type: Demand for Jury Trial
  • Judge:
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: TBD

 

Background

Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF) and six individual plaintiffs from California Educators for Medical Freedom (CAEMF) filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) challenging COVID-19 vaccine mandate for all teachers and staff. The defendants will be served this week. (1)

Health Freedom Defense Fund opposes laws and regulations that force Americans to submit to the administration of medical products, procedures, and devices against their will. (1)

Never in the history of this nation have citizens been subjected to such violations of their individual rights and liberties as they have under the constant state of emergency in effect in the United States for the last twenty months. The COVID emergency has been used to justify lockdowns, ban worship services, suspend jury trials, impose mask mandates, and now, to force vaccines, in what amounts to a clear violation of the most basic of human rights, that of bodily autonomy. (1)

 

Significance

This Case Challenges the Ability of the State to impose Medical treatments (especially new) on staff as a a condition of employment.

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

The lawsuit alleges an utter lack of justification for LAUSD’s mandate, citing robust science which demonstrates the inability of the currently authorized COVID-19 vaccines to prevent infection and transmission, the superior protection of natural immunity, and the significantly higher incidence of injuries, adverse reactions, and deaths from the COVID-19 injections compared to all prior vaccines brought to market. (1)

 

Leslie Manookian, president of HFDF said, “How have we come to a place in less than two years where many Americans now feel comfortable inquiring about the personal health choices of others and our government feels comfortable coercing healthy Americans to undergo a risky medical procedure in order to provide for their families? Have we become North Korea?” (1)

As CDC has admitted the COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and recent evidence demonstrates that vaccinated individuals are as likely to spread the Delta variant as the unvaccinated, any public health argument for the shots has disintegrated. (1)

“Instituting a vaccine mandate as a requisite of employment is a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law and is unconstitutional,” said plaintiffs’ lead attorney John W. Howard. As such, LAUSD’s mandate also constitutes a serious invasion of the privacy rights of the plaintiffs. (1)

The complaint goes on to state that those injected with COVID vaccines can become “immunological cripples” dependent on vaccines for the foreseeable future, “super-spreaders” carrying extremely high viral loads in their nose and upper airways, and may become more clinically ill than the unvaccinated, with a higher chance of death and severe hospitalization.(1)

Attorneys claim the plaintiffs in the case have been stripped of their liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which includes rights of personal autonomy, self-determination, bodily integrity, and the right to reject medical treatment. (1)

 

Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…

 

Decision

Aftermath

Further Research

Media

……

source: ….

….

source: ….

 

References

  1. https://healthfreedomdefense.org/2021/11/health-freedom-defense-fund-sues-los-angeles-unified-school-district-over-staff-vaccine-mandate/
  2.  

 

Keyword

HFDF, Los Angeles, LAUSD, School, California, court, federal, Florida, Mandate, USA, Vaccine, Educators for Medical Freedom, CAEMF


Back to All Cases