Alt Resistance
@altresist.bsky.social
Patents. Litigator. Forme judicial law clerk SDNY.
by waiting until after the legality of Schedule F has been determined and after legislative funding for the Fork severace packages has been obtained -- before going forward with the Fork plan. 7/7
February 13, 2025 at 2:53 AM
by waiting until after the legality of Schedule F has been determined and after legislative funding for the Fork severace packages has been obtained -- before going forward with the Fork plan. 7/7
It will increase likelihood of mistakes and disruptions in the smooth functioning of their work due to missing people (those who took offer), the fear of indiscriminate layoffs and demand for "loyalty".
The complaint could argue that such harm can be prevented .. 6/7
The complaint could argue that such harm can be prevented .. 6/7
February 13, 2025 at 2:53 AM
It will increase likelihood of mistakes and disruptions in the smooth functioning of their work due to missing people (those who took offer), the fear of indiscriminate layoffs and demand for "loyalty".
The complaint could argue that such harm can be prevented .. 6/7
The complaint could argue that such harm can be prevented .. 6/7
to offer such a deal w/o Congressional authorization) places those who accept the offer into an uncertain legal limbo where it is not clear what their rights are.
C. The Fork plan will create confusion and hardship to those remaining, in their carrying out of their duties. 5/7
C. The Fork plan will create confusion and hardship to those remaining, in their carrying out of their duties. 5/7
February 13, 2025 at 2:53 AM
to offer such a deal w/o Congressional authorization) places those who accept the offer into an uncertain legal limbo where it is not clear what their rights are.
C. The Fork plan will create confusion and hardship to those remaining, in their carrying out of their duties. 5/7
C. The Fork plan will create confusion and hardship to those remaining, in their carrying out of their duties. 5/7
- when he has no present legal basis to fire them -- improperly injects confusion and uncertainty into workforce.
B. Encouraging civil service employees to leave their positions based on a promise they will be paid a severance (when he has no legal ability 4/7
B. Encouraging civil service employees to leave their positions based on a promise they will be paid a severance (when he has no legal ability 4/7
February 13, 2025 at 2:53 AM
- when he has no present legal basis to fire them -- improperly injects confusion and uncertainty into workforce.
B. Encouraging civil service employees to leave their positions based on a promise they will be paid a severance (when he has no legal ability 4/7
B. Encouraging civil service employees to leave their positions based on a promise they will be paid a severance (when he has no legal ability 4/7
and will harm both those who elect into the plan and those who don't. It could argue for ex:
A. Until the Schedule F lawsuits have been adjudicated it is not clear Trump has the right to layoff these fed employees, therefore sending a letter that includes a threat of layoffs 3/7
A. Until the Schedule F lawsuits have been adjudicated it is not clear Trump has the right to layoff these fed employees, therefore sending a letter that includes a threat of layoffs 3/7
February 13, 2025 at 2:53 AM
and will harm both those who elect into the plan and those who don't. It could argue for ex:
A. Until the Schedule F lawsuits have been adjudicated it is not clear Trump has the right to layoff these fed employees, therefore sending a letter that includes a threat of layoffs 3/7
A. Until the Schedule F lawsuits have been adjudicated it is not clear Trump has the right to layoff these fed employees, therefore sending a letter that includes a threat of layoffs 3/7
yes ,the complaint would have to allege a harm to plaintiff federal employee that could only be alleviated by striking down the policy. But it could take a diff't form from what you are thinking.
IMO the complaint could allege for example that the Fork plan creates chaos in workplace 2/7
IMO the complaint could allege for example that the Fork plan creates chaos in workplace 2/7
February 13, 2025 at 2:53 AM
yes ,the complaint would have to allege a harm to plaintiff federal employee that could only be alleviated by striking down the policy. But it could take a diff't form from what you are thinking.
IMO the complaint could allege for example that the Fork plan creates chaos in workplace 2/7
IMO the complaint could allege for example that the Fork plan creates chaos in workplace 2/7
The fact that OPM sent out a message tonight saying the program was closed, might be a sign they know it is legally suspect, or unpopular with his base.
That may also make it more difficult to file a lawsuit.
But to answer your question, 1/7
That may also make it more difficult to file a lawsuit.
But to answer your question, 1/7
February 13, 2025 at 2:53 AM
The fact that OPM sent out a message tonight saying the program was closed, might be a sign they know it is legally suspect, or unpopular with his base.
That may also make it more difficult to file a lawsuit.
But to answer your question, 1/7
That may also make it more difficult to file a lawsuit.
But to answer your question, 1/7
The court sort of seems to be suggesting that one or more federal employees directly bring the lawsuit, saying a couple of times that the unions are not the ones "directly affected" by the directive. Rather the fork plan is "a policy that affects others, specifically executive branch employees".
February 13, 2025 at 2:13 AM
The court sort of seems to be suggesting that one or more federal employees directly bring the lawsuit, saying a couple of times that the unions are not the ones "directly affected" by the directive. Rather the fork plan is "a policy that affects others, specifically executive branch employees".
the primary relief sought (not $$)
Think of Roe v. Wade. where harm to one individual (Roe) was used 2 get an injunction that helped all members of that group (by striking down problematic state laws).
In our case, an injunction stopping the implementation of this Fork plan would be the objective.
Think of Roe v. Wade. where harm to one individual (Roe) was used 2 get an injunction that helped all members of that group (by striking down problematic state laws).
In our case, an injunction stopping the implementation of this Fork plan would be the objective.
February 13, 2025 at 1:16 AM
the primary relief sought (not $$)
Think of Roe v. Wade. where harm to one individual (Roe) was used 2 get an injunction that helped all members of that group (by striking down problematic state laws).
In our case, an injunction stopping the implementation of this Fork plan would be the objective.
Think of Roe v. Wade. where harm to one individual (Roe) was used 2 get an injunction that helped all members of that group (by striking down problematic state laws).
In our case, an injunction stopping the implementation of this Fork plan would be the objective.
That's interesting, I had not been thinking class action lawsuit. Typically those are slower moving b/c you have to go through a process to establish a class, provide notice, etc.
Here, where the situation is urgent, a case filed by individuals would do the job. Since an injunction is 1/3
Here, where the situation is urgent, a case filed by individuals would do the job. Since an injunction is 1/3
February 13, 2025 at 1:16 AM
That's interesting, I had not been thinking class action lawsuit. Typically those are slower moving b/c you have to go through a process to establish a class, provide notice, etc.
Here, where the situation is urgent, a case filed by individuals would do the job. Since an injunction is 1/3
Here, where the situation is urgent, a case filed by individuals would do the job. Since an injunction is 1/3
Yes, it was great to see your comment. Staying informed & engaged is most imp't part.
Standing is a more "technical" issue in a way, so is harder for lay person to understand. I wanted to make sure ppl knew this ruling doesn't necessarily signal this is end of road. I appreciated your comment.
Standing is a more "technical" issue in a way, so is harder for lay person to understand. I wanted to make sure ppl knew this ruling doesn't necessarily signal this is end of road. I appreciated your comment.
February 13, 2025 at 1:05 AM
Yes, it was great to see your comment. Staying informed & engaged is most imp't part.
Standing is a more "technical" issue in a way, so is harder for lay person to understand. I wanted to make sure ppl knew this ruling doesn't necessarily signal this is end of road. I appreciated your comment.
Standing is a more "technical" issue in a way, so is harder for lay person to understand. I wanted to make sure ppl knew this ruling doesn't necessarily signal this is end of road. I appreciated your comment.
Bringing the lawsuit on behalf of federal employees will also require clearly articulating the injury, but IMO it is more sound approach in that it directly attacks the thrust of the harm, which concerns the job security and smooth workplace functioning of the federal civil service work force.
In fact, the court sort of seems to be **suggesting that solution saying a couple of times that the unions are not the ones "directly affected" by the directive. Rather the fork plan is "a policy that affects others, specifically executive branch employees".
February 13, 2025 at 12:44 AM
Bringing the lawsuit on behalf of federal employees will also require clearly articulating the injury, but IMO it is more sound approach in that it directly attacks the thrust of the harm, which concerns the job security and smooth workplace functioning of the federal civil service work force.
Union can still pay for the lawsuit - it just has to enlist the help of a member or two to act as a plaintiff(s).
(The plaintiffs can remain anonymous.)
(The plaintiffs can remain anonymous.)
February 13, 2025 at 12:39 AM
Union can still pay for the lawsuit - it just has to enlist the help of a member or two to act as a plaintiff(s).
(The plaintiffs can remain anonymous.)
(The plaintiffs can remain anonymous.)
Issue of standing ensures that a plaintiff gets all their ducks in a row and is clear about the claims they are asserting.
The judge may be correct that a complaint brought directly on behalf of the federal employees themselves is more appropriate. It may end up being more effective.
The judge may be correct that a complaint brought directly on behalf of the federal employees themselves is more appropriate. It may end up being more effective.
February 13, 2025 at 12:39 AM
Issue of standing ensures that a plaintiff gets all their ducks in a row and is clear about the claims they are asserting.
The judge may be correct that a complaint brought directly on behalf of the federal employees themselves is more appropriate. It may end up being more effective.
The judge may be correct that a complaint brought directly on behalf of the federal employees themselves is more appropriate. It may end up being more effective.
In fact, the court sort of seems to be **suggesting that solution saying a couple of times that the unions are not the ones "directly affected" by the directive. Rather the fork plan is "a policy that affects others, specifically executive branch employees".
February 13, 2025 at 12:34 AM
In fact, the court sort of seems to be **suggesting that solution saying a couple of times that the unions are not the ones "directly affected" by the directive. Rather the fork plan is "a policy that affects others, specifically executive branch employees".
For example, (A) current Federal employees or (B) Federal employees who accepted the Fork proposal, might be able to bring a lawsuit.
February 13, 2025 at 12:28 AM
For example, (A) current Federal employees or (B) Federal employees who accepted the Fork proposal, might be able to bring a lawsuit.
I am not familar with details of the case but the Judge's (Clinton appointee) decision may be correct.
As you say, standing concerns who has the right to bring a lawsuit. Saying the union does not have standing does not foreclose. others. 1/2
As you say, standing concerns who has the right to bring a lawsuit. Saying the union does not have standing does not foreclose. others. 1/2
February 13, 2025 at 12:28 AM
I am not familar with details of the case but the Judge's (Clinton appointee) decision may be correct.
As you say, standing concerns who has the right to bring a lawsuit. Saying the union does not have standing does not foreclose. others. 1/2
As you say, standing concerns who has the right to bring a lawsuit. Saying the union does not have standing does not foreclose. others. 1/2
This is a good example of why it is so important that federal employees stay in their jobs (And why helping them do that should be a priority).
As long as there is a civil service in place that will do the right thing & follow court orders - Trump can't execute the illegal actions that he wants
As long as there is a civil service in place that will do the right thing & follow court orders - Trump can't execute the illegal actions that he wants
February 12, 2025 at 7:55 PM
This is a good example of why it is so important that federal employees stay in their jobs (And why helping them do that should be a priority).
As long as there is a civil service in place that will do the right thing & follow court orders - Trump can't execute the illegal actions that he wants
As long as there is a civil service in place that will do the right thing & follow court orders - Trump can't execute the illegal actions that he wants
Thanks, it's clearly a bot.
February 12, 2025 at 7:50 PM
Thanks, it's clearly a bot.
yes bluesky has been a revelation in terms of behavioral modification
February 12, 2025 at 6:30 PM
yes bluesky has been a revelation in terms of behavioral modification
Exactly, that's why the courts are moving so swiftly to stop this. This is clear violation of fundamental principle of separations of powers (checks and balances) set forth in Constitution that our founders set up to protect the country from the kind of dangerous overreach that Trump is attempting.
February 12, 2025 at 6:15 AM
Exactly, that's why the courts are moving so swiftly to stop this. This is clear violation of fundamental principle of separations of powers (checks and balances) set forth in Constitution that our founders set up to protect the country from the kind of dangerous overreach that Trump is attempting.