Jeff Childer's Constitutional Strategy for Covid Mandates
As you all know, I’ve been litigating these cases for half the time the injections have existed. One thing I’ve learned is the government is panic-stricken at the thought of trying these injections in court. It would be their worst nightmare. But it HAS to happen. We need to find out if the injections work, and now that the public health agencies are insane puppets of the federal government, the only way to do it is to put the drugs on trial. IT’S THE ONLY WAY TO WIN.
Childers decided from the beginning that he would base the lawsuit on Florida’s strong right to privacy, rather than whether masks worked or not, and Tanenbaum wrote that Judge Keim’s decision to not grant an emergency injunction was incorrect because when a temporary injunction motion is based on a privacy challenge, any law that implicates privacy “is presumptively unconstitutional” and “must be subject to strict scrutiny and justified as the least restrictive means to serve a compelling government interest.” Specifically, this puts the burden of proof on the defendant, not the plaintiff; in this case, this means that the County, in this situation, would have to prove that masks work to reduce infections and are the least restrictive means to reduce COVID-19 infections in the County.
….As Childers writes, “This is the very first appellate decision in the entire country finding that masking is unconstitutional. To borrow a metaphor from [the University of Florida’s] Dr. Lauzardo, nobody else has managed to get the football across the goal line anywhere else. Not yet, anyway. Maybe this decision, even if it’s subsequently reversed, will be an encouragement to other courts and other judges.” Childers has been writing for some time about “cracks in the dam” of COVID-19 restrictions, and he now says, “Maybe this is where the foundations of the dam are finally swept away.”
Plaintiff Justin Green brought the lawsuit on the grounds that the order violated the right to privacy in Florida’s Constitution and the First Amendment right to free speech in the U.S. Constitution.
Attorney Jeff Childers argued that under the principle of strict scrutiny, the burden should be on the County to prove that its ordinance is constitutional and that it is narrowly tailored and uses the least restrictive means to actually promote a compelling interest.
To support that argument, he quoted Paul Myers, Alachua County Administrator for the Florida Department of Health, who told the county commission that there is “no consensus” among health care professionals that face masks are effective and that wearing face masks should be voluntary. Childers suggested a voluntary mask order as a less restrictive measure. Childers also pointed out that over 90% of Florida counties do not have mandatory mask orders, and the rest of the state’s numbers have continued to improve, anyway.
In the landmark 1905 case Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the United States Supreme Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. That bedrock principal has been the bulwark of mandates issued by counties, states and the federal government.
Childers said he parsed the court’s opinion in Jacobson about three months ago and believes he’s found the key to unlock victory using the very same case against municipalities imposing mandates.
“They’d convinced everybody, even me,” he said. “Jacobson has such archaic language, and it’s hard to read. You really have to unpack it.” State laws about privacy and bodily autonomy are the key, he believes. That belief helped convince the Circuit Court to toss Gainesville’s mandate.
Childers argued the court needed to consider his clients’ right to privacy enumerated in Florida’s Constitution.
The judge agreed the right to privacy is explicitly contained in the Declaration of Rights of the state’s Constitution, which means it is considered a fundamental right. Therefore, the government can only infringe that right if necessary to accomplish a compelling government interest. Even then, it must use the least restrictive means necessary to serve that interest, a legal principle known as the “strict scrutiny” standard of review.
“Therefore, this court must determine whether the City’s Vaccine Mandate implicates Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to privacy, such that the Vaccine Mandate should be reviewed under the strict scrutiny standard of review,” Brasington said.
“If a challenged law implicates Florida’s right to privacy, the burden shifts to the government to prove that the law furthers a compelling state interest in the least restrictive way —also known as the “strict scrutiny” standard,” reasoned Brasington. She added the standard also applies in instances when the government employer seeks to enforce workplace policies.
Gainesville city employees’ lead attorney, Jeff Childers, said he felt confident about the trial and his argument in favor of an injunction.
“The strongest argument we have is the Florida constitution’s strong right to privacy, which includes a right to complete bodily autonomy and a right to refuse unwanted medical procedures, so that the city of Gainesville cannot treat its employees’ bodies like property,” Childers said.
Brasington’s ruling cited the privacy rights afforded to Florida residents by the state’s constitution.
She said the city of Gainesville did not present evidence to justify the vaccine mandate and infringing on the plaintiffs’ right to privacy.
Even though there’s more news today than lies in a CDC press conference, a lot of folks are facing imminent injection ultimatum deadlines. Should they resign? Take the jabs? Try to sue? What to do? Today I’m offering suggestions to all those folks who are facing reprehensible employment policies that treat them like cattle. Send to everyone who needs to see this. ... The first thing you need to do is buck up. This is a spiritual war, and you need to be in top mental form to fight. ... Look, this is an awful situation. But don’t feel hopeless or powerless. You have the high ground, morally and legally.
Childers is harnessing the momentum to form a coalition of attorneys from across the country interested in taking on similar fights over mask and vaccine mandates and whatever else comes next in the fight to preserve freedom, he told The Epoch Times.
A reply from Childers Law to an inquiry that has some great advice: “Thank you for your email requesting assistance with your employer’s vaccine mandate. We have a received a high volume of calls from people just like you being coerced or forced to take a vaccine to keep their job. We are trying to get back to each of you as quickly as possible. If you have already had a chance to speak to us at Childers Law, please disregard this message.
If you are still needing assistance, here are some initial steps or alternative options you can take:
Apply for a medical or religious exemption. Attached are resources to help you in filing for a religious exemption.
Follow the process for the exemption set forth by your company. At no time should you sign anything that states you agree to voluntarily resign if your exemption is denied and you refuse to take the vaccine.
If you have enough co-workers to join together in a lawsuit and would like to have a consultation with Jeff Childers, he is offering those at a reduced rate of $350 for the hour. A lawsuit against your employer is very costly for a single employee and is not recommended. You have to start with a minimum $10,000 retainer to get started. It is cost-prohibitive for one individual to take this on alone so organize a group.
If you have more questions about your exemption process and would like to retain Jeff for legal advice, you have two options: 1) Schedule a one-hour private consultation for $350, or 2) Attend one of the weekly group Zoom meetings Jeff holds to answer FAQs about exemptions and provide feedback. This is a reduced cost of $100 for the Zoom call.
Please let us know if you would like to schedule one of the above options to retain Jeff for legal advice.
If you are looking for us to refer an attorney located in your area, we will do our best to review all inquires and forward them accordingly. Until then, please review the information provided in this email.
We will do our best to fit you in as soon as possible; please keep in mind that we are getting many calls each day and doing our best to help everyone.