U.S. Marshals Face Contempt for Disrupting Court After Refusing Judge's Order to Disclose

[TexasTowelie]

U.S. Marshals Face Contempt for Disrupting Court After Refusing Judge’s Order to Disclose Coronavirus Vaccination Status


U.S. Marshals face contempt of court for refusing to follow a federal judge’s orders and disrupting court proceedings in Aberdeen.

On March 25, Judge Charles Kornmann issued a memo to his Aberdeen courthouse staff asking them all to tell him in writing whether they had gotten their shots for coronavirus or, if not, when and where they had scheduled their vaccinations.

We are not talking about politics or conspiracy theories. We are talking about science and protecting all of us who serve the public here as well as the jurors, lawyers, and parties who come to this building. If you are refusing to take the vaccines, I want to know that so I can decide what further action is required on my part. I hope we will all act in a responsible manner as I am not looking for confrontations [Judge Charles Kornmann, memorandum to Aberdeen courthouse staff, 2021.03.25].

Judge Kornmann was following up on a similar memo from our district’s Chief Judge Roberto Lange. Judge Lange supported Judge Kornmann’s memo with a district-wide staff e-mail on April 1 in response to questions he received from staff. According to Judge Lange every judge in the South Dakota district supports Judge Kornmann’s position on ensuring the safety of their workplace:

First, nothing in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) bars federal judges or the federal judiciary from learning which employees are and are not vaccinated. We researched HIPAA before we modified our juror questionnaire to ask if potential jurors have been or are scheduled to be vaccinated. We have a right, and indeed in my view an obligation in assuring the safety of the workplace, to find out who has and has not been vaccinated. All of the district judges have discussed and agreed that we will have to know who has and has not been vaccinated to decide how we are going to conduct court operations going forward [Judge Roberto Lange, e-mail to South Dakota District Court staff, 2021.04.01].

Judge Lange made clear that South Dakota’s federal judges expect all federal courthouse employees to get their shots:

Second, we have discussed a date by which we expect all employees to be vaccinated and likely end teleworking arrangements. That date probably will be June 1, 2021. That will allow ample time for all to get vaccinated and indeed for any with vaccine hesitancy to observe that the vaccines are indeed safe and effective. For those with vaccine hesitancy, I implore you to talk with your physician or medical provider. I would make myself personally available as well to discuss and address concerns; I surely would like to know if I have overlooked a particular grounds for vaccine hesitancy in sending the Johns Hopkins information an in my prior email. For those with vaccine hesitancy, please know that vaccines have solved polio, rubella, tetanus, measles, rabies, whooping cough, mumps, chickenpox, diphtheria, etc. You likely have had your children vaccinated to enter school, and your pets vaccinated for their well-being. A miniscule [sic] percentage of people with anaphylaxis are excused from being vaccinated for COVID-19, and we will accommodate any such employee in the unlikely event that we have one. Although I do not expect any of you to be so calculating, no one should expect that they can refuse to get vaccinated and thereby continue teleworking; that will not occur [Lange, 2021.04.01].

Read more: https://dakotafreepress.com/2021/05/31/u-s-marshals-face-contempt-for-disrupting-court-after-refusing-judges-order-to-disclose-coronavirus-vaccination-status/

[SoCalDavidS]

1. America

[BobTheSubgenius]

2. When I read "...every judge in the South Dakota district supports..." I thought

"Of course they do!" I quickly realized that that is not a given any more. Despite the vetting that a lot of judges go through, many are essentially rubes that happen to be popular in their given constituency - why shouldn't there be a somewhat lower per capita, but still measurable number of nut cases that don't believe science?

Think of Roy Moore in this context. I'm glad we don't have to.