Several interesting developments in our case and in some surrounding cases that I thought worth sharing with you all.

Many of the original 50 or so folks that started on this journey may remember me mentioning my partnership with Defending the Republic’s (DTR) Brandon Johnson, who is leading the charge in Coker v. Austin in the N.D. Florida. I point you all to the Motion for a Protective Order under FRCP Rule 23(d) that was filed in that case on Monday, June 6.

In sum, the Department of Justice’s attorneys appear to be engaged in attempts to solicit statements from various plaintiffs (Major Tom Short and 1st Lt Mark Short’s cases, as well as MSgt Nick Kupper in the Coker case) that would amount to agreements to offers to compromise. This is the government’s latest tactic (it appears to me) to get signed statements from putative plaintiffs that could later be used against them in civil litigation. Specifically, these are the “we have Comirnaty” offers that have started to pop up. “And if you’re willing to take it, we’ll make all of the hurting stop!”

My recommendation is that you politely decline and refer your commanders, sergeants-major, or whoever is leaning on you to your case’s complaint that is filed in E.D. Texas. This general advice should also take you a long way in all of the various places that you are asked to sign documents or rebut denials of your RAs or medical exemptions. Point the Command directly to the complaint – it contains an outline of your arguments against taking these mRNA shots (until and unless amended). In fact, I would recommend that you simply take the complaint and copy all of the headlines without the supporting text and you’ll have a very good outline of the arguments we’re making, without all of the supporting argument and citation.

In a related matter, many MANY of you pushed hard for a “litigation letter” from me and I resisted, so I wanted to share with you the email I got from the DoJ’s counsel regarding that letter – and my response. You can file it under “no good deed goes unpunished” and “this is why things don’t happen on schedule.”


It has come to my attention that you have been communicating directly with commanders in the military regarding a case you recently filed captioned as Joshua Wilson, MAFL, et al. v. Lloyd Austin III, et al., 4:22-cv-438 (E.D. Texas).  An example is attached.  As you are no doubt aware, the Defendants in this case are represented by the Department of Justice.  I am writing to inform you that I, along with my colleague Jody Lowenstein, represent the Defendants in that action, including the military officers currently commanding your clients.  Should you wish to communicate with any member of the military about this case (other than your clients), those communications should be directed to me and Jody as required by Kansas Rules Relating to Discipline of Attorneys, Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2, and Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, 4.02(a). 

To make sure there is no misunderstanding, you do not have our consent to communicate directly with our clients—including anyone in the military command where your clients serve.  You do not otherwise appear to be authorized by any law or court order to communicate with our clients.  If you have something you’d like to convey to those individuals, you can send it to me.

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out.

– ZA Email, Mon. Jun. 6, 2022

I’ve printed and uploaded my complete reply for your consideration, which I apologize is quite a bit longer, but that’s because I am responding to a very serious charge against me – based upon what I consider a completely erroneous understanding and spurious claim of who the DoJ’s clients actually are.

Information that may only be of interest to me, but I doubt it.
I was curious about some of the attorneys from the DoJ in light of documents, pleadings, and conversations I’ve now seen in a fair number of the cases currently pending regarding the mandates. On a hunch, I looked up one of the DoJ attorneys to see what his prior experience might be. Pharma defense. Huh. No kidding. Now working at the DoJ and coincidentally handling the DoD vaccine mandate cases. I wondered if that might include Pfizer or other companies currently contracted with DoD, but I don’t have time to run that down. Not completely germane, but interesting things to know about folks on the other side.
Things are likely to get busy in the coming week getting the Motion finalized for those facing the gun, and our Coastie friends on-line, in a place all their own.
Hang in there.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Abject Lesson on Patreon.
Become a patron at Patreon!