Another Vax Mandate Case Heard in the Appellate Court

Unincluded, Not Tolerated, Fired

On November 10, 2021, DHHS and the Maine CDC permanently adopted the mandate that all employees of designated Maine healthcare facilities be fully vaccinated against the lab-created, NIH-funded COVID-19 bio-weapon. In violation of the Constitution, the requirement did not permit religious exemptions. When Alicia Low, seven other healthcare workers, and one individual healthcare provider in the state of Maine expressed their sincerely held religious beliefs which prevented them from being injected with experimental COVID-19 “vaccines”, they were blackballed by the “tolerant” and “inclusive” hate mongers at work and in the community. Some even combined anti-Christian with anti-Muslim slurs to create bigoted, anonymous, violence-inciting rhetoric, such as:

“The Liberty Counsel is the Christian American Taliban.”

“This dangerous and deadly public health matter presents an opportunity to further control those who look to [religion] for spiritual nourishment.”

The plaintiffs submitted religious exemption requests and were denied any accommodation under the erroneous assertion that an accommodation of their religious beliefs would create “undue hardship” for their employers. After receiving the ultimatum to either take the jab or lose their jobs, they were fired.

District Court Challenge

Lowe and the other victims of religious discrimination then sued Janet T. Mills in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Maine, as well as seven other defendants, in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. Somewhat unique to this case was the fact that the plaintiffs filed the complaint under pseudonyms to gain a semblance of protection from retaliation by the media, the dupes who believe them, Big Tech’s censoring and shadow banning machinery, taxing authorities and other weapons of the New World Order. The plaintiffs claimed that the governor, the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Health and Human Services¹, the Director for the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention², and the operators of several of Maine’s largest healthcare systems³ violated the following by:

1. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e];

2. Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment;

3. Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment;

4. Supremacy Clause; and 

5. Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights [42 U.S.C.A. § 1985]

Lowe and the other plaintiffs did not challenge the lawfulness of the rule making process by which the statutory rule imposing the mandate was adopted.

Media’s Invasion of Privacy

The Plaintiffs were originally allowed to proceed pseudonymously in this litigation. However, two media companies⁴ filed a motion to unseal their identities, arguing that the plaintiffs should not continue to be permitted to proceed pseudonymously because the plaintiffs’ alleged fear of harm didn’t outweigh the public’s interest in open legal proceedings. The plaintiffs opposed the motion. Yet, even though the defendants didn’t object, Chief U.S. District Judge Jon D. Levy granted the motion, ordering the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, identifying themselves by name. 

Splitting the Procedural Hairs

The plaintiffs sought a stay of this order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, but it was denied on July 7, 2022. So the plaintiffs- reduced to six at that point- were forced to file an amended complaint, identifying themselves by name, on July 11, 2022. Once the plaintiffs were exposed, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and that the State actors have sovereign immunity. When the plaintiffs didn’t oppose the motion, Chief U.S. District Judge Jon D. Levy dismissed the case on August 18 of 2022 without allowing Discovery, stating that the plaintiffs’ claim lacked a plain statement showing that they were entitled to relief⁵, and that he was treating the claim as abandoned since the plaintiffs didn’t object to the motion to dismiss. In the judge’s own words,

“Throughout the amended complaint and memoranda of law, the Plaintiffs employ the terms ‘religious accommodation’ and ‘religious exemption’ interchangeably, but, as I will discuss, although a ‘religious exemption’ is a type of ‘religious accommodation’, it is by no means the only type.”

“Because the Plaintiffs failed to oppose the Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, I treat the affected claims as abandoned. Thus, the claims against Governor Mills and damages claims against all State Defendants are properly dismissed.”

The Appeal

Today, May 4, 2023, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel argued before judges Montecalvo, Selya, and Lynch of the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the First Circuit⁶ on behalf of the appellants, asking the court to reverse the lower court’s decision. The brief filed by Liberty Counsel can be found here. During the proceedings, Staver was offered the bone of dropping his Title VII complaint to simplify the case, but he declined. The State then argued that the legislature had removed religious exemption allowances in 2019. Judge Sandra L. Lynch retorted,

“You obviously haven’t been reading Supreme Court precedent in this area or you wouldn’t have brought the motion to dismiss.

“You have, yourself, more or less admitted that there are factual issues that you want us at the Motion to Dismiss stage to make a ruling that the federal regs [Title VII] preempt the state vaccine mandate…”

Conclusion

It is our view that Staver’s argument prevailed and the court should reverse the United States District Court’s decision, forcing the case to undergo Discovery and Due Process before the lower court renders a decision. We ask that our subscribers pray for the plaintiffs and thousands of others like them who lost their jobs when they held to their faith and convictions.

---

Legal Research and Weapons to Set You Free

Passage To Liberty performs extensive research and analysis in order to uncover secrets that are missed by reporters who only read case summaries. These deep dives require a special expertise and a tremendous amount of time. Please consider supporting Passage To Liberty.

PTL also provides legal training, documents and assistance to people seeking to retain and defend their rights and liberties. Obtain legal weapons and sign-up for training at PassageToLiberty.com.

Join the Civil Rights Lawsuit at Passage To Liberty.

Join the Private Trading Association at Passage To Liberty.

Watch and listen to more webcasts by Passage To Liberty on Rumble.

1. Jeanne M. Lambrew

2. Nirav D. Shah

3. Maine Health, Genesis Healthcare of Maine, LLC, Genesis Healthcare, LLC, Northern Light Eastern Main Medical Center, and MaineGeneral Health

4. MTM Acquisition, Inc., d/b/a Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram, Kennebec Journal, and Morning Sentinel; and SJ Acquisition, Inc., d/b/a Sun Journal

5. In other words, the plaintiffs’ complaint contended that they had asked for exemptions, but it failed to show that they had asked for any other accommodations, such as being able to work in a special area.

6. The court has a record of ruling against such appeals.