Chicago, IL. (ECWd) –
Teachers and Staff win a temporary restraining order against Chicago Public School District #299, which was signed by Sangamon County Judge Raylene DeWitte Grischow today restraining the Chicago Public School District #299 from mandating shots or testing for certain teachers and employees of the district.
From the Order:
- Plaintiffs Possess a Clear Right In Need Of Protection
- The Legislature made it clear that plaintiffs have a due process right to object before being subjected to vaccination, testing, isolation, or quarantine, all of which are alleged to prevent the spread of an infectious disease.
- Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Injury
- The injury alleged by the plaintiffs is the laws of this State which controls these matters of public health are being violated.
- Plaintiffs Have No Adequate Remedy At Law
- There is no adequate remedy at law because the loss of the continuous sacrifice of legal rights cannot be cured retroactively once the issues are decided on the merits.
- Plaintiffs Are Likely To Succeed On The Merits Of Its Claim
- A plaintiff need only “raise a fair question as to the existence of the right which it claims and lead the court to believe that it will probably be entitled to the relief requested if the proof sustains [its] allegations.”
- WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
- A temporary restraining order is entered enjoining The Board and CPS from taking any action against plaintiffs’ employment for refusing to comply with the school district’s vaccination or testing policy, alleged to prevent the spread of an infectious disease, unless the plaintiffs have first been given their procedural and substantive due process rights under 20 ILCS 2305, et seq. which procedures have been further outlined in 77 Ill. Adm. Code 690.1330.
- This Order is binding upon all the parties to this action, including all of their officers, agents and employees.
- Nothing in this Order shall be deemed to limit the certified local health department from enforcing all applicable provisions of 20 ILCS 2305 et seq. and 77 Ill. Adm. Code 690, et seq. as necessary to limit the spread of any infectious disease.
- This temporary restraining order shall remain in full force and effect pending a trial on the merits unless sooner modified or dissolved.
Read the entire Order below:
doc20220408141855
11 Comments
Golden Country
Posted at 10:53h, 09 AprilWhy can’t these teachers sue the Chicago School Board Members for civil rights violations?
Frank Miller
Posted at 10:57h, 10 Aprilhttps://bondsforthewin.com/
Kirk Allen
Posted at 09:50h, 11 AprilI would not put any stock in the bond issue as there is a lot of misinformation as it relates to that matter in Illinois.
Frank Miller
Posted at 15:49h, 11 AprilThe law is clear for public officials who have violated the oath of office, 18 U.S. Code § 241 and 18 U.S. Code § 242. Many officials are not bonded, but are covered under liability insurance. In any case, the bond or insurance is there for a reason, for official misconduct. A reference to any misinformation would be helpful.
Kirk Allen
Posted at 17:16h, 11 AprilThe Illinois case with the school was not as they claimed. I FOIA the records from the school and there were no bonds for the board members as was being claimed. In order for the bonds to be acted on, there has to be an actionable claim of injury to the person making the claim. In the case of Shelby County, it’s more of a taxpayer claim rather than an individual claim. There is a LOT more to snatching one’s bond. It can be done, but don’t hold your breath on this one.
Frank Miller
Posted at 17:58h, 11 AprilThe purpose of filing a claim for oath of office violations is to prevent injury before it occurs, e.g. punitive damages. Ending their career as a public official should be the first priority, not making money off their bond. I have public officials in my family, and can assure you they are not quizzed on constitutional rights upon entering office.
Kirk Allen
Posted at 19:03h, 11 AprilThere is no cause of action for violation of oath of office in Illinois. The federal law you point to is only applicable to federal office holders.
Frank Miller
Posted at 19:37h, 11 AprilTechnically, you are right. But the same type of law will be found at the state and local level. Illinois Compiled Statutes does a good job of obsuring the consequences for oath of office violations, using the word “rights” instead. The State of Georgia on the other hand points directly to the “oath of office”, and the consequences for violations. Semantics.
Frank Miller
Posted at 08:27h, 12 AprilThe cause of action is breach of contract. Whether or not the State of Illinois has specific consequences for violations is not important.
Instead of waiting 2 years to determine if people have due process rights against forced medical procedures, like what happened with the clown show in Sangamon County, filing a claim against the bond or liability insurance policy of the public official can usually be resolved within a few months.
Frank Miller
Posted at 17:03h, 12 April“The federal law you point to is only applicable to federal office holders.”
Go back and read 18 U.S. Code § 241 and 18 U.S. Code § 242, since they refer to
“any person in any State”, and not just federal office holders.
See also – https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983
Bradley VanHoose
Posted at 18:01h, 13 AprilGreat news, J.B. Pritzker has overstepped his legal authority.