URGENT NOTICE TO L.A. CITY & COUNTY:
HALT VACCINE MANDATES & PASSPORTS IMMEDIATELY
Scroll down to view or download in PDF format
Law Offices of Helena S. Wise Law
16654 Soledad Canyon Road, #529
Canyon Country, California 91387
Offices of Gregory G. Yacoubian
2625 Townsgate Road, #330
Westlake Village, California 91361
Mayor Eric Garcetti
Members of the City Council
City of Los Angeles
200 N. Main Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Members of the Board of Supervisors
Fesia Davenport, CEO
County of Los Angeles
555 S. Grand Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Steve Mermell, City Manager
City of Pasadena
100 N. Garfield Avenue, S228
Pasadena, California 91101
Patricia Poppe, Chief Executive Officer
PO Box 997300
Sacramento, CA 95899
Toks Omishakin, Director
1120 N Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Megan Reilly, Interim Superintendent
And the Board of Education
Los Angeles Unified School District
333 S. Beaudry Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90017
Carol Lombardini, Executive Director
Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers
15301 Ventura Boulevard, Building E
Sherman Oaks, California 91403
Martin Adams, General Manager
and the Board of Commissioners
Department of Water and Power
111 North Hope Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Jason Caudle, City Manager
City of Lancaster
44933 Fern Avenue
Lancaster, California 93534
Kevin Payne, President & CEO
Southern California Edison
PO Box 800
Rosemead, CA 91770
Ramin Davidoff, MD, Chairman
393 Walnut Street
Pasadena, California 91101
Coalition of County Unions
Coalition of City Unions
Non-Coalition County Unions
Non-Coalition City Unions
Registered Employee Organizations
Open Letter from Freedom To Choose LA
September 20, 2021
Freedom To Choose – LA
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Please be advised that we represent Freedom to Choose-LA, a grassroots humanitarian organization consisting of public and private sector employees and family members located primarily in Southern California. This group has grown in leaps and bounds in less than ten days and has been formed because either you conceived of the notion or have been led to believe by labor unions that there is no opposition to vaccination mandates, PCR testing and various proposals which seek to differentiate between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated relative to terms and conditions of employment. We can assure you there is clear opposition, while statistics shared with your governing boards this past week proves same as well.
In light of the E-Mail campaign that commenced within DWP and elsewhere within the City of Los Angeles, the County and up and down the State, it has become readily apparent that on this basic issue of human life, labor appears to have lost touch with its members, particularly if it has led you to believe that the mandates you are imposing are acceptable. They are not. AFSCME, as opposed to IBEW Local 18 has decided to respond to one such E-Mail recently sent by stating that:
AFSCME and the Coalition of City Unions “continues to bargain the effects of the proposed policy. At this point we have not tentatively agreed on any part of the policy, and we remain committed to fight for those that support and do not support vaccination mandates. … The vaccination mandate deadline remains, however, no enforcement mechanism has even been proposed by the City at this point.”
We find it intriguing to hear that negotiations remain in progress and that purportedly noenforcement mechanism has been proposed, although threats of termination, surcharges for
PCRs, and statements that employees who refuse to vaccinate will not be able to promote have clearly been circulated. What the rank and file is being told and what the Coalitions are hearing or doing purportedly in negotiations are clearly at odds. Meanwhile, private sector Employers, operating within the entertainment and health care industries, along with educational institutions are using your actions to fleece their employees and even students of their constitutional rights.
AFCME’s current position is clear, including when it has stated:
“Based on a Supreme Court ruling and Federal Judge ruling, the City can mandate the vaccination and they have done so. We do encourage our members to get vaccinated to protect the health of themselves, their families, and the public however, we are continuing to advocate for a holistic approach to stopping the deadly Delta variant, including a frequent and robust testing option for members who have yet to be vaccinated. We are proposing that all testing for employees be done on City time and paid for by the City of L.A. This is not a process that includes a ratification vote because the courts have ruled the mandate is legal.”
This reasoning is grossly faulty and overly simplistic. First, there is no recent Supreme Court ruling on this subject, except for a dated decision which did not even recognize the strict scrutiny standards that have since developed when encroachment upon fundamental rights are at stake.
Nor is there a federal judge ruling in California that mandates “this” vaccine, more commonly known as a “jab”. A few federal courts elsewhere are finally waking up to these issues. Do you think the Police, Firefighters, Amalgamated Transit Union, SEIU Healthcare Workers and the United Federation of Teachers elsewhere in the country, i.e., New York, Chicago, and Oregon, would be fighting, let alone bargaining to impasse if this battle were truly over?
LAUSD, at the beginning of August 2021, narrowly escaped an adverse ruling in the federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles by suddenly announcing it was abandoning its vaccine mandate and thus there was no case to decide. Such gamesmanship should prove to be their downfall, since we are now hearing that the mandate issue has resurfaced. In fact, LAUSD is now claiming that as one of the largest School District in the country, it will commence vaccinating our children over the age of 12 in November. You heard that right. Our children and our grandchildren!!
In California, the most recent decision used to justify the mandates issued from the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) on July 26, 2021, involving AFSCME, see PERB Decision 2783-H. Therein, AFSCME claimed that the University of California, then under the direction of its then President Janet Napolitano, did not have the right to compel employees, students, and teachers alike to take the flu vaccination. PERB disagreed and stated the Union only had the right to negotiate the effects of the mandate. In the meantime, the new UC President allowed the Order pertaining to the flu vaccination to expire. How many of you declined the flu vaccine … and for how many years? Besides the suggestion that the flu vaccine is next on the list to be ordered, the Decision itself requires you to rethink where you are heading. A case is only as good as the advocates presenting it.
In examining the decision, we were surprised to see that before PERB, AFSCME did not offer any experts to counter the University of California’s claim about the flu influenza and its alleged heightened significance due to Covid-19. One would hope that AFSCME understood the importance of refuting the evidence offered, especially if it sought to convince PERB to reach a different decision, namely one obligating Employers to negotiate the legality of the mandates first and foremost, if one could even assume that collective bargaining is an appropriate setting for addressing these basic issues about human rights.
There is ample evidence from scientists, medical professionals, including pathologists, and people who have experienced the effects of the “jab” and its spike protein first and/or secondhand. These stories, suppressed until recently, overwhelmingly shows that that which the City and the County of Los Angeles, and other public entities in the State are insisting on imposing upon its employees and the community is infirm, unsafe, and immoral.
Just remember that last year you were told by esteemed Social Workers like Dr. Barbara Ferrer, the head of the County’s Public Health Unit, let alone Dr. Anthony Fauci, to isolate and to stay 6 feet apart. Now the distance is only 3 feet apart. You were told to mask, unmask and then mask again, and sadly to not sing at church. However, the decision to close our schools and to offer a virtual education based upon that reasoning has adversely impacted not only our educational system, but the very ones who are supposed to benefit from receiving that education, namely our nation’s youth attending both public and private schools. As a sad consequence, the suicide rate has skyrocketed, while children are walking like Zombie’s because that is what they are being told to emulate.
Meanwhile, worthy students who are not vaccinated are being denied entrance into extracurricular programs, while key players who have been vaccinated are now hospitalized or maimed for life, with actual media coverage of Everest Romney’s condition in Utah a case in point. The most recent rationale by Dr. Ferrer that exposure to individuals with allegedly positive tests can justify further segregation and denial of entrance of the unvaccinated into afterschool programs is incomprehensible, particularly in light of natural immunities, the presence of antibodies and statistics showing that the vaccinated are now capable of catching and spreading this laboratory-made virus.
These and other events, including your mandates, are occurring simply because of a perceived blind urgency to implement vaccines even though they remain in the experimental stages of testing. This remains the case, despite the alleged “approval” of Pfizer at a time when its recent submitted application seeking approval to commence testing on a new test has been received.
Sadly, the elderly have suffered tremendously, especially when confined in nursing homes and hospitals without the benefit of seeing their loved ones, let alone an advocate to speak on their behaves. Having observed what happens in these confinement settings firsthand and having learned elder abuse law, suffice it to say that we believe that accountability and transparency in government and the health care industry has been shelved at a time when needed the most.
In the 1980s there was a Union Access case before PERB on behalf of SEIU’s United Healthcare Employees which cast in concrete the right of Unions to access the employee lounges on the various floors of the UCLA Hospital to organize employees. Look up the case, PERB Decision 0329H (August 5, 1983). Read the decision especially since it turned out that the “mask mandate” offered to justify prohibiting the Union from meeting with employees in their work areas, instead of the proposed alternative locations in the School of Medicine, was a mandate drummed up for the hearing. It became readily apparent during a Judge-ordered tour wherein participants put on masks and other protective gear to enter the Neonatal Unit that no one else had a mask on — not a physician, not a nurse, not a parent, nor a neonate. As was concluded during the tour, the only health risk that UC could genuinely articulate was one caused by the “union bug”.
Meanwhile, it has just been announced that Oregon is considering exempting police officers from the vaccine mandates because its officers are demanding such. Read the successful challenge in the California Supreme Court brought by the Long Beach City Employees Association in 1986, 41 Cal. 3d 937, to California’s Polygraph Statute which required all public employees, except for law enforcement, to submit to polygraphs. The Supreme Court struck the statute in question because law enforcement was exempt — resulting in a finding that there was impermissible discrimination, to wit a violation of equal protection, while also commenting upon the infringement on one’s right of privacy that a polygraph examination invites. Unlike the United States Constitution, California’s Constitution specifically recognizes one’s right to privacy as well.
Thus, justifications to exempt one group of employees but not others is to create a caste system that is intolerable. Efforts to penalize workers seeking exemptions by now claiming that Religious Exemptions can result in placement of employees on unpaid leave, or that Medical Exemptions previously given because of one’s age and/or susceptibilities which justified telecommute assignments can now be revoked are hollow alternatives subject to the whim of government, with no compelling state interest or rationale basis.
Recent news that exemption requests are being scrutinized, at a time when elected and appointed officials have had blanket exemptions built in depending upon where they work, what office they hold, or who their boss is, is itself discriminatory. Distinguishing between members of society who must “jab” belies the claim that a genuine medical basis exists for the vaccinations in the first place. One would have expected the banner to otherwise read, “what is good for the goose, is good for the gander,” But apparently that is not the case, as evidenced by the widely broadcast federal exemptions given to members of Congress and their staffs, court employees and even postal workers. It is rather ironic that prisoners in California were among the first to be vaccinated, even though Skinner vs. Oklahoma (1942), 316 U.S. 535 struck a forced sterilization of prisoners’ mandate during World War 2 as unconstitutional. The right to procreate is now at issue even more so.
Suffice it to say that the vaccine mandates and the scheme of passports is divisive and ignores the adverse effects upon the family, our communities, and the fabric of society in general. The ulterior motives of those promoting this in California, the nation, and the rest of the world, do not have your best interests in mind. Famed rock musician, Eric Clapton, who barely survived after receiving his jabs in the United Kingdom has just told the Prime Minister that if only vaccinated can attend his concerts, then he will not play them because that in and of itself is discriminatory.
Efforts by certain members of the County Board of Supervisors to dilute the impact of a vaccine passport by claiming that access to concerts, businesses and stores should be made accessible to those who have taken at least one dose misses the point. Such parsing defies logic, if one insists that having a vaccine is the only way to combat Covid, even though Covid is an alleged virus that has yet to be isolated. Furthermore, if only one dose would be acceptable, then why are you being told that booster shots are already in the offing. Do you intend to cram those down the throats of your employees and your constituents as well? For this reason, the demand that employees answer questions, including whether they have received vaccinations since reaching the age of 18, let alone the Covid “jab” should be stopped.
It is increasingly obvious that politicians are trying to be scientists while many scientists and medical professionals have turned to their profit margins instead of their Hippocratic oaths. Telling you this is just like another smallpox epidemic ignores what even former heads of the Vaccine companies are now trying to forewarn people about, namely this is a bioweapon designed to depopulate the world, while politicians ignore basic tenements of the Nuremberg Code embodied in 50 U.S. Code §1520(a).
Please also ask yourselves why you glorified healthcare workers during the pandemic but are now suddenly threatening their jobs if they continue to refuse to “jab”. First responders know precisely what has been happening and their stories need to be told, along with the burgeoning voices of esteemed medical and scientific voices which have been muzzled to date. Recent restricted publicity about the sudden deaths of pilots is frightening, given the heavy reliance upon the airline industry by not only the United States, but the world. It does not appear anyone cares about the serious repercussions which your mandates have and will continue to cause unless stopped.
Suffice it to say, our members do not wish and will not wear “yellow stars”, nor will you revive Manzanar, on the guise that contact tracing mandates same. The isolation camps setting up in Washington ironically was referenced by the Public Health Director in Ventura in May 2020 when warning Ventura County residents about that County’s rollouts. Thereafter, public housing and dorms for farm workers were targeted for mandatory testing, but such captive audiences should be reexamined since human rights transcends all socio-economic lines.
On behalf of Freedom to ChooseLA, which you may access at https://freedomtochoosela.com as well as FreedomtoChooseCA and FreedomtoChooseUSA, we wish to urge you to immediately stop this nonsense and to freeze further implementation of vaccinate mandates, passport proposals and threats of increased usage of the PCR test which has already been shown to not pass muster, either. If it did, considering the increasing number of hospitalizations of vaccinated now suffering from Covid, it would appear you would want vaccinated to take PCR tests as well. But please do not take that as a tacet concession that PCR testing is an alternative because it is not, especially when it is not performed under pristine laboratory conditions.
Our members, to wit, your employees, and their families, do not believe there is any rhyme or reason for your mandates. It is time that a public forum, aired and broadcast by major and fake media, as well as government-controlled outlets allow the true experts to be heard. We are confident that the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers can assist in providing major network coverage of such a forum to not only better educate yourselves on the “jab,” but the masses who are depending on you to abruptly reverse the path you have started down. We would suggest a Live Public Forum of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, in the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, where esteemed experts and victims can be heard, particularly since their input has been grossly suppressed for more than eighteen months.
A few pathologists from abroad as well as in the United States would be happy to share the results of recent autopsies performed on decedents who dutifully accepted their “human obligation” to be vaccinated. These same professionals and their colleagues are more than willing to publicly be heard about adverse events, the lack of truthful reporting and the repercussions to the living and the unborn, including due to shedding.
However if you are unwilling to withdraw your mandates, or at least postpone them so that no employee or student is adversely impacted, then we will have no other choice than to proceed with litigation, not only in Southern California, but throughout the nation. We would prefer to engage in a meaningful dialogue about how a community education program can facilitate a better understanding of these matters, while we are confident labor too will support that request.
Until we hear from you, please do not interpret this grassroots movement as politically motivated because Freedom To Choose transcends all boundaries – regardless of one’s politics, race, sex sexual orientation, national origin, age, disabilities, or religious beliefs. It does not matter whether one is employed in the private or public sector; by a municipality, county, state, or federal government, or covered by a collective bargaining agreement or a simple handshake. Freedom to Choose means precisely that!
Very truly yours,
HELENA S. WISE GREGORY YACOUBIAN
- Neil and Kimberly Stiller, Founders
Freedom to Choose – LA
Freedom to Choose – CA
Freedom to Choose – USA
- LA Times Reporters
- David Robb, Deadline.com
- Rudy Rico, Founder, Chicano Employers Assn.
- Mayor Cameron Smyth, City of Santa Clarita
- Mayor Rex Perris, City of Lancaster
- Sue Frost, Member, BOS, County of Sacramento
- Governing Board, Hart Unified School District
- Mayor Robert Garcia, City and Port of Long Beach
- Business Manager, Joël Barton, IBEW Local 11
- Jim Wilson, Exec. Director, NECA, Los Angeles
- Robert Kennedy, Children Health Defense
- Commander Jeremy Vaughan, Naval Air
Weapons Station China Lake
View or download in PDF format: