“For example, installing a hidden camera in the women’s changing area of a VA medical center is not a CSRA-covered personnel action…”
Background
On September 9, 2021, Puppet President Biden issued Executive Order 14043, which required all federal employees to be injected with experimental “vaccines”. As with all Executive Orders issued by a President, this order only applies to federal employees, not the People in general. Employees who didn’t obey the order would face termination. He also issued Executive Order 14042, which imposed the same requirements and punishments upon federal contractors. Once again, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which has been heavily relied upon and used routinely since 1946 to deny the right to trial by jury and Due Process, were brought into question by large groups of employees and contractors who recognized that forced injections, even by Executive Order, are unconstitutional.
District Court Challenge
The plaintiffs- Feds for Medical Freedom, American Federation of Government Employees, and more than 50 individual plaintiffs- sued Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and Janet Yellen in their official capacities (“BDY”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act (“DJA”) against the enforcement of both mandates. They argued that Article II of the federal Constitution does not give Biden- or even a legitimately elected President- the authority to issue either mandate. They also claimed that the mandates were arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of the APA.
The Tyrants’ Appeal
After the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the federal employees their requested injunction, the government attorney’s for BDY appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The government contended that the CSRA- a federal law intended to streamline and integrate the review system for federal employees’ challenges to personnel actions- repealed 28 U.S.C. §1331, the law which gives the district courts jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”. In that initial, expedited appeal in 2022, a small panel of appellate judges hastily agreed with BDY’s attorneys and vacated the injunction. The victims of the mandates then requested a review by the full court, whereupon the panel opinion was vacated and an en banc hearing was granted.
The Ruling
Ultimately, the court upheld the lower court’s injunction temporarily protecting federal employees from the jab for these reasons:
“The primary question presented is whether we have jurisdiction over pre-enforcement challenges to President Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal employees. We do….
We hold plaintiffs are not challenging CSRA-covered personnel actions. Plaintiffs are challenging (under the Constitution, the APA, and the DJA) the President’s executive orders requiring federal employees to make irreversible medical decisions to take COVID-19 vaccines. Even construing the CSRA’s language broadly, we fail to see how an employer’s medical mandate could constitute a covered personnel action….
On the merits, we affirm the district court’s order….
When the parties proceed to the merits in the district court, ... both sides will have to grapple with the White House’s announcement that the COVID emergency will finally end on May 11, 2023. See Exec. Off. of the President, Statement of Administration Policy Re: H.R. 382 & H.J. Res. 7 (Jan. 30, 2023).”
Here Is Where It Gets Interesting
No doubt, you have heard some of these aspects of the ruling from some of the more honest reporters. But you didn't hear about this.
During their case research supporting the deliberations, the appellate judges uncovered so much corruption surrounding the use of the CSRA that some found it necessary to clarify the limits of a “CSRA-covered personnel action1”:
“the CSRA does not strip §1331 jurisdiction when federal employees challenge something other than a CSRA-covered personnel action. For example, installing a hidden camera in the women’s changing area of a VA medical center is not a CSRA-covered personnel action and hence can be challenged outside the CSRA. See Gustafson v. Adkins, 803 F.3d 883, 888 (7th Cir. 2015)”
Yes, you read that correctly. In Gustafson v. Adkins,
“...defendant-appellant William Adkins, a detective at the Jesse Brown Veterans Affairs (“VA”) Medical Center in Chicago, installed a hidden surveillance camera in the ceiling of an office used by female officers as a changing area. The camera captured images of female officers dressing and undressing. VA personnel discovered the covert surveillance equipment during a renovation of the VA Medical Center in September 2009, at which time Renee Gustafson first learned that the camera had captured images of her changing from early 2007 through April 2009. [Renee] Gustafson filed suit against Adkins on August 24, 2011, alleging an unconstitutional search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Adkins, who installed the covert video camera in the ceiling tiles in the women’s changing area by order of Myron K. Thomas, Chief of the Police and Security Service, filed a motion for summary judgment and was denied. So he appealed to the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, contending that he had qualified immunity for his actions as a federal employee!
Yet, apparently, this one citation wasn’t enough to draw attention to the widespread corruption in federal agencies, for the court went on to quote from other decisions mentioning “personnel actions” by supervisors in the federal government who believed that their disciplinary actions were immune from prosecution under the CSRA and FECA (Federal Employees' Compensation Act). Some of the disciplinary actions that reached the light of day in court consisted of wiretapping, warrantless personal searches, uncompensated takings2, libel3, seizing and opening federal employee's personal mail at the office4, physical assaults5, illegally searching a federal employee’s home6, aiming a loaded weapon at an employee7, and even rape and sexual assault8 .
Considering these crimes, which government employees felt they had the right to commit with impunity, and referring back to the Gustafson spy camera case, the court reasoned:
“…if ‘working conditions’ does not include peephole cameras in workplace changing rooms, it certainly does not include private, irreversible medical decisions made in consultation with private medical professionals outside the federal workplace.”
Quoting Collins v. Bender, 195 F.3d 1076, 1080 (9th Cir. 1999), the court wrote:
“[W]e do not believe that Congress intended to deputize government supervisors as chieftains of security forces that police the private lives of their employees subject only to some administrative oversight, and we do not believe that Congress meant to shoehorn into the CSRA every odd occurrence where a supervisor forms and leads such a renegade posse.”
Act Or Be Enslaved
By affirming the lower court’s preliminary injunction, the court of appeals prevented Biden’s reckless mandate from being applied to all federal workers until a trial is held and a verdict in Biden’s favor is rendered. That’s good. But in highlighting the corruption that is systemic in the federal bureaucracy, the court gave we, The People, an assignment: Purge the corruption from all agencies at all levels of government! You can begin to do this by filing Freedom of Information Act requests (FOIA’s) to compel the release of files of federal employees. Examine the documents you receive and dig deeper. Then publish your findings. You can do this via Passage To Liberty’s platform. We will then bring lawsuits against the management-level bureaucrats who are routinely violating the law. If everyone files just on FOIA requests and follows where it leads, we can root-out the miscreants before they attain more authority!
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 and assistance to people seeking to retain their rights and liberties. Obtain legal weapons and sign-up for training at PassageToLiberty.com.
Essentially, a disciplinary action
Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, 385 n.28 (1983)
Gutierrez v. Flores, 543 F.3d 248, 253–54 (5th Cir. 2008)
Hill v. Dep't of Air Force, 884 F.2d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir.1989)
Orsay v. DOJ, 289 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2002)
Collins v. Bender, 195 F.3d 1076, 1080 (9th Cir. 1999)
Millbrook v. United States, 569 U.S. 50 (2013)
Brock v. United States, 64 F.3d 1421, 1425 (9th Cir. 1995)
Appellate Court’s Vax Mandate Ruling Discussion Reveals Systemic Perversion, Corruption, & Abuse of Power