🥰 thank you, friend. I have to admit, I’m usually pretty sensitive about the downvoting stuff, but I didn’t even notice it, amidst all the great support. Thank you for taking up for me.
Thank you to ALL who replied. This forum has saved my sanity so many times. I don’t know what I would do without all of you. I admit, it was a little bit of a pity party post, and I apologize for that. A based friend of mine shared a quote from an old Hercule Poirot movie that I feel applies to ALL of us—
“I have the advantage. I can only see the world as it should be. And when it is not, the imperfection stands out like the nose in the middle of a face. It makes most of life unbearable. But it is useful in the detection of crime.”
Love you all. Thank you all for the support.
Thank you, sweet fren.
This headline made snort out my coffee this morning. 🤣 well done. Well. Done. 🙌🏻🙌🏻😉
I think that Ohio actually joined the other lawsuit that the LA AG filed along with 13 or so other states...fingers crossed for you that it has the same outcome!!
Here is some info on that other lawsuit—and it looks like 3 other states just joined the 11 original states very recently. So, it's picking up some steam.
https://dojmt.gov/attorney-general-knudsen-leads-multi-state-lawsuit-against-biden-healthcare-worker-jab-or-job-mandate/
I'm not sure, to be honest. I do know there is another lawsuit similar to this one, that was brought by the Ag of Louisiana, along with another 10-12 other states just recently. I haven't been following that one as closely, but I wonder if this ruling will help. The best case scenario in my opinion is that CMS realizes they don't have a chance, if enough states bring suits, and the back all the way down—nationwide. Like OSHA did.
I have noticed this as well! Sometimes it will take a week before they decide to slap a badge on one of my posts. Used to be instantaneous!
And here is the link from the MO AG office: https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/cms-injunction.pdf?sfvrsn=ed822d9d_2
You're welcome!
Here's the entire order:
Blown the Fuck Out? That's what I always thought it meant...but I like Backed the Fuck Off, too! ;)
Here's where you can follow along with any updates at a 30,000 foot, level: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/42600713/Missouri,_State_of_et_al_v_Biden_et_al
(You'd need a paid sub to view the docs, here—I would suggest using the actual PACER website to sign up for a free account. You can view court docs at .10 per page, and it's the legit gov site for federal case tracking—not the one I have linked above).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his official capacity as the President of the United States of America, et al., Defendants. No. 4:21-cv-01329-MTS PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING AND CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION On September 9, 2021, the Government announced that it would impose a vaccine mandate on health-care workers in facilities that receive federal funds. This unlawful and unconstitutional vaccine mandate for health-care workers threatens to disrupt and devastate the provision of basic health-care services, especially in rural and underserved communities, as Plaintiffs’ thirty declarants attest. See Docs. 9-1 to 9-30. Two months later, on November 5, 2021, CMS promulgated that mandate, 86 Fed. Reg. 61,555, imposing an arbitrary initial deadline of December 6, 2021, for workers and facilities to comply. Doc. 15, at 2. As soon as CMS’s vaccine mandate was published, Plaintiffs worked diligently—indeed, frantically—to pursue interim injunctive relief to prevent disruption of critical health-care services in communities throughout their States. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on November 10, three business days after the policy was published, Doc. 1, and they filed their Motion for Preliminary Injunction one business day later, on November 12, Doc. 9, seeking expedited review at the same time. Doc. 7. Case: 4:21-cv-01329-MTS Doc. #: 16 Filed: 11/17/21 Page: 1 of 8 PageID #: 314 2 The Government opposes expedited review, claiming that it needs more time to defend a policy that it spent two months formulating and doubtless has long anticipated would be subject to immediate legal challenges. Doc. 15. The Government’s arguments are meritless. First, the Government feigns surprise, arguing that “Plaintiffs failed to give Defendants notice of their preliminary injunction motion, and did not attempt to confer with Defendants before filing their motion to expedite.” Doc. 15, at 1. These representations are plainly incorrect. As soon as Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on November 10, Plaintiffs effected service by the Government’s required method of submitting summonses and Complaint by certified mail to Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1). Defendants had actual notice of this lawsuit on November 10, because CMS made public statements responding to the lawsuit on that date. See Ten States Sue the U.S. Over the Vaccine Mandate for Health Care Workers, N.Y. TIMES (Nov. 10, 2021) at https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/health/vaccine-mandate-state-lawsuit.html. Then, on Friday morning, November 12, 2021, at 8:42 a.m., Mr. Osete, counsel for Plaintiffs, emailed the Civil Chief and Acting Appellate Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri, providing courtesy copies of the Complaint and notifying the Government that “[w]e’ll be filing a motion for a preliminary injunction today, as well as a request for expeditedconsideration.” Nov. 12, 2021 Email of Mr. Osete (attached as Exhibit A) (underline in original). Later the same day, Mr. Osete sent a courtesy PDF copy of the PI memorandum to those senior officials in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and notified them that “[w]e’ve also requested expedited consideration, with a ruling by 5:00 pm on November 29, 2021.” Id. (emphasis in original). Despite these repeated notices to the Government, the undersigned counsel received no response. or any other contact from any Government attorney until Tuesday, November 16. The Government’s argument that it received no fair notice of the motion for preliminary injunction is demonstrably incorrect. Next, the Government proposes a “compromise” of filing its response brief on Wednesday, November 24—i.e., one business day before the Government concedes that its response is otherwise due. Doc. 15, at 1. The Government states that “Plaintiffs have not identified any legitimate reason to so drastically expedite the briefing schedule,” id. at 2, but this is again Incorrect. As the Motion itself states clearly, and as Plaintiffs’ counsel pointed out to counsel for the Government during a phone conference yesterday, it is imperative that Plaintiffs receive effective relief before December 6, based on the Government’s self-imposed arbitrary deadline, and requesting a ruling by November 29 permits a reasonable seven-day window for the losing party to seek interim relief from the Court of Appeals. See Doc. 7, at 3 (citing, inter alia, Texas v. Biden, No. 2:21-CV-067-Z, 2021 WL 3603341, at *28 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 13, 2021) (providing a seven-day temporary stay of injunction to permit interim appellate review)). The Government, astonishingly, accuses Plaintiffs of foot-dragging, speculating that “it is highly unlikely that [Plaintiffs] started from scratch on November 5, 2021.” Doc. 15, at 3. This suggestion is baseless. The Government is the entity that took nearly two months to prepare and publish its policy—waiting until after the President had returned from a foreign trip before publishing it on Friday, November 5, and imposing an arbitrary deadline for compliance so aggressive that it seems deliberately calculated to frustrate orderly judicial review. See Doc. 15, at 2. Plaintiffs worked with extraordinary diligence to file their Complaint three business days later, and their Motion for Preliminary Injunction one business day after that. The Government also complains about the large number of declarants who have come forward to challenge this unlawful and devastating policy, Doc. 15, at 3, but those largely resulted from an extraordinary response in rural health-care communities to the news of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit being filed. Healthcare facilities in rural and underserved communities face devastating consequences from the CMS mandate, and the groundswell of opposition reflected in Plaintiffs’ declarations directly attest to these. See Docs. 9-1 to 9-30. The Government also argues that putting time into the schedule to allow motions for interim relief in the Court of Appeals is unnecessary because “the rules provide a mechanism for Plaintiffs to seek an administrative stay if the Court denies their preliminary injunction motion.” Doc. 15, at 4. The undersigned counsel does not share the Government’s cavalier view that the Eighth Circuit is indifferent between stay motions that can be briefed over seven days, and those that must be decided on an immediate, emergency-fire-drill basis. In any event, the Government will assuredly oppose a motion for temporary administrative stay if Plaintiffs eventually have to file one, so its argument here rings hollow indeed. Finally, the Government argues that “[t]here is no reason the Court needs to issue a decision prior to December 6, 2021.” Doc. 15, at 4. Again, this is manifestly incorrect. Immediately before this statement, the Government concedes the CMS rule “requires all relevant staff of covered health care facilities to have received, at a minimum, the first dose of a vaccine by December 6, 2021,” and “[c]overed facilities must also have appropriate policies and procedures developed and implemented by that date.” Doc. 15, at 2-3 (emphasis added). By December 6, 2021, all covered health-care workers will have already been forced to decide whether to become vaccinated or quit their jobs, and the disruption predicted by Plaintiffs’ declarants will be well underway. Also, leading up to that deadline, healthcare providers will need to start trying to fill the job vacancies that the rule will create, shifting around employee schedules to account for the lost labor, and reassigning people to stopgap understaffing in critical departments (such as emergency medicine). It is obvious that Plaintiffs need effective relief before December 6. The Government’s argument to the contrary is so insupportable that it appears to reflect a deliberate strategy of delay, as the Government surely realizes that its unlawful mandate will have achieved many of its illegal effects by December 6. Its suggestion that the Court delay ruling until after that date is telling indeed. For the reasons stated, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant their Motion to Expedite. Dated: November 17, 2021 Respectfully submitted, DOUGLAS J. PETERSON ERIC S. SCHMITT
Unfortunately, she's definitely a real person. And has always championed the shots and all of the covid nonsense, because she, herself, is immunocompromised. If that adds another layer of evil to all of this. When we peel back all the virtue-signaling crap, er issue is that it makes HER feel better about HER health and safety to force this shit on everyone ELSE. ugh.
I decided to share the same video as this person, and add my own commentary:
"I cried watching this today.
We've stooped to becoming a society that positively vibrates with excitement at the opportunity to treat our precious young children like lab rats, in exchange for the opportunity to virtue-signal and spout sanctimonious bullshit on social media.
This is the hill that many will die on.
After years of being personally attacked by my democrat 'friends', who called my pro-life stance only 'pro-birth'—I will now look any one of you in the whites of your eyeballs and tell you that you're full of shit.
Not only do you NOT respect life in the womb, but here's your evidence that you care not ONE iota for children's lives after birth.
I could talk about this for hours. But that's all I'm going to say for now.
I am deeply saddened by the cowardice and the ignorance of these parents in our community, and I pray that God will wrap his arms around these children and keep them safe."
I wish she was—but she’s a personal acquaintance of mine. Goes to my church and everything. I’m just stunned by people like this.
I see DWACW and DwAC avail for trading o on WeBull, fren!!🙌🏻 🤷🏼♀️
I guess I totally missed the joke. Which I was subsequently called a retard for. 🤷🏼♀️ Listen people—I’m a single mother of two, survivor of a marriage you don’t want to know the details about. I don’t take it lightly when someone tells me they’re monitoring my IP address and are going to kill me tonight. Sorry I missed the humor in that.
OP, may I paraphrase your story on FB? I stay on FB for opportunities to open people’s eyes with stories like this—I would love to write a post about yours. If so, I’d probably refer to you as “a friend,” as I retold the story—would you be ok with that?? (Ie: “I learned from a friend today, a horrifying story of what’s going on with these mandates and some doctors’ refusals to grant even what would be life-saving medical exemptions”...or something like that. Totally fine if you’d rather I didn’t but wanted to run by you before I did anything!!! Prayers with you both. I’m so sorry you are dealing with this madness. ❤️
I agree with you! This friend of mine is a super normie, though. Doesn’t get involved in politics much at all, so it didn’t surprise me that he said no thanks.
Yes. Because it was fake and super gay
Lol I know what the actual abbreviation “BS” means, yes. I was asking which part of the post they were saying was BS. Just trying to understand it, myself, man. Also—Apologies—I didn’t mean you were bent out of shape. I was referring to the other more violent comments.
Please forgive me for being retarded, but does anyone know if this ruling will eventually affect emissions laws pertaining to diesel vehicles and the need to use DEF fluid? Ie: will we finally be able to take them into a dealership/shop to have this particularly stupid system disabled—legally? Because that would be awesome.