67. Davis R. Younts, Esq. and the NDAA
===

Nurse Kelly: [00:00:00] Welcome to after Hours with Dr. Sigoloff, where he can share ideas and thoughts with you. He gets to the heart of the issue so that you can find the truth. The views and opinions expressed are his and do not represent the US Army, d o d, nor the US government. Dr. Sigoloff was either off duty or on approved leave and Dr.

Nurse Kelly: Sigoloff was not in uniform at the time of recording now to Dr. Sigoloff.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: All right. Well thank you for joining me again. I wanna first give a shout out to my Patreon supporters. We've got Shell at the $50 level. We've got Sam and Angela Sheey. Thank you so much for your support. And we've got the, the. Tier three, which is the Pandemic Reprimand at $17 and 76 cents a month with Perry and Ty helping there.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: We've got a self-made level at $10 with Kevin and Katie. The $5, the refined, but not burned tier. Joe, pj, Rebecca, Emmy. We've got the courageous courageous, contagious level at $1 a month. Amanda bets nasty. And Jay, I wanna thank you all so much for. [00:01:00] For, for supporting me, for helping me with these various lawsuits that I'm engaged in.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: I was just speaking with our guest about how I've already spent 60,000 of my own and 10,000 of Truth for Health grant. And so, and what we're gonna talk about a little bit is the N D A A and how that doesn't seem to have any Recourse for me, but we'll, we'll get into that a little bit more and find out.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: I have the pleasure of introducing Davis Yuns lawyer. We've spoken to him a few times before, but he's been influential in this fight. He's been here since the beginning. He anything that he says is solely, his opinion is not that of the Department of the Air Force the d o d nor the US government.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Great to have you back.

Davis Younts, Esq.: Hey, thanks brother. It's great to, . So where do you wanna start? Well, let's talk about the N D A A. Love it. Let's dive in. So, yeah, listen, as you know, it's a, it's a step, right? It's a step in the right direction when we look at the language that's in the current N D A A. But it's important to talk about the idea that ending the mandate, ending the [00:02:00] mandate through the N D A A does very little.

Davis Younts, Esq.: A, anyone like us, like you and I, who has already been subjected to adverse career consequences because of the vaccine mandate. So there's, there's a couple different ways to frame it, but I think we can, we can start by talking about kind of the history of the this N D A A, how we got here and what's actually in it.

Davis Younts, Esq.: Do we have to go back to last year? What's in the current N D A A? Would've been great if it had been in last year's N D A, the 2022 N D A. So many of us were pushing for that. I was on phone calls with congressional staffers. There were a few congressmen that were willing to push for it, but it never got any traction.

Davis Younts, Esq.: Didn't happen last year. The only change that happened in the N D A A last year was a slight downgrade in the level of punishment that they could give individuals who refused the vaccine. So the only thing that happened for the 2022 N D A A was the worst case scenario for discharge characterization for someone who refused the vaccine was a [00:03:00] general discharge.

Davis Younts, Esq.: So while that was a small change, it did help because the military was contemplating court marshaling all of us. And that's not an exaggeration. That's what we were all being threatened with and, and we expected it, that change in the N D A made it less attractive for the military to court marshal people because they couldn't get a punitive discharge.

Davis Younts, Esq.: So somebody couldn't get a, a bad conduct or a dishonorable discharge from a court marshal because of that tweak to the ndaa. So that's kind of where it. And then we move forward to this year, and what happened is Congress has passed House and the Senate have passed. We're waiting for Biden's signature on an N D A A that will end the mandate.

Davis Younts, Esq.: The only language in the NDA, N D A A is, hey, from the date it's signed, the Department of Defense has 30 days to end the mandate. That's it. So, We don't know what that's gonna do moving forward. We don't know what that means as far as policy or what policy's going to look like and it does nothing [00:04:00] retrospective.

Davis Younts, Esq.: So whichever one you want to talk about, first off, as far as the past stuff, the retrospective, or what it looks like in the future, let me know.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Yeah, well, I mean we've got, we've, I'd like to cover all those if we have time. Like so things that are, In in incoming right now, I guess. So they guess the retrospective, so like me in particular, and there's many, many service members, I'm only using me as an example, and this is not a poor me.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: I knew exactly what I was stepping into when I walked into this, this ring, but like I've allegedly disobeyed direct orders because they were in order, and so I've disobeyed them. Well, this doesn't remedy that at all, does it?

Davis Younts, Esq.: It it doesn't. And that's the issue. So the issue that we have, from a, from the military's perspective, from a DOD policy perspective, and they look at any one of us who was given an order to receive the vaccine and refuse that order, which includes you and I , right?

Davis Younts, Esq.: Anyone that did that, they're looking at us, at us as if we [00:05:00] have dis disobeyed an order. According to them, it's a lawful order, and therefore the, whether it's a, a gomar on the army side, a letter of reprimand, whatever it is, whatever punishment occur. , they see that as done and fixed, and, and we could still face separation, face the loss of our career because of that, you know, that punishment that we received.

Davis Younts, Esq.: So this N D A A, just ending the mandate does nothing to address any of those orders. It does nothing, nothing to address the illegality of those orders. And it does nothing to restore anyone who's already been punish. So for example, I mean, we have this crazy, crazy situation. You and I have talked about it, where we have an army captain who's meeting an administrative separation board the very week that Congress passes this into the mandate.

Davis Younts, Esq.: The only misconduct in over 17 years is an allegation of not following this order, and that's it. And that individual is [00:06:00] now still being process. For separation because that occurred prior to this new N D A A. And regardless. Regardless, because the disobeying, the lawful order occurred before the end to the mandate, the OD could take the policy position that they're still going to punish and administratively separate all of us.

Davis Younts, Esq.: And I think that's critical because this, the issue for many of us, what saved many of us is the injunctions in federal court. The federal judges that have said, Marine Corps, Navy Air Force it. It's apparent on its face that you violated federal law. You violated the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as it pertains to religious accommodation review process.

Davis Younts, Esq.: And for all of those people, and I'm one of them, that injunctions protected us. But if that injunction goes away, if there's some change in the federal litigation, , guess what? We're not protected anymore. Right? We fall back, we fall back into the process. [00:07:00] We fall back into that because again, that all happened before this change in the N D A So that's a huge problem. And, and there's nothing about this change that does anything to, to restore that. .

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And so I, that kind of brings me to my next, how do we, how do we flip it on its head, right? Because right now it's, they said it's no longer a mandate, but in, in reality, when you look at the facts and you look at the law, There is many people.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: There are many people that have broken the law. 10 USC 1107 alpha, and the only reason we have that law is because it went so long that they said, okay, all right, you need to stop pushing this anthrax thing. And so now we actually have code that that has been codified and that's redundant, but we have law that says, no, you can't force service members to, to.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: To take eWAY products? Well, they've already done that, so they already broke the law. And, and for, for guys like you and me like we were in when that law was written, like there's some, some younger, young bucks in who, who weren't in when [00:08:00] that, but, but they're actually violating the law that was written for us.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And so how do we, how do we flip that on its head and start the offense? Because making it stop is not good enough if, if it's removed because then we will. The only reason we can say it's illegal now is because it went far enough in the past that we have this law now, and I've been using this example and tell me if this is inappropriate, but it seems like it's appropriate if I go to the judge and say, your Honor, the defendant burned my house down.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And the judge says, oh, well you don't have a house, so you, your case is moot, but Your Honor, I don't have a house cuz he burnt it down. But your case is moot because you don't have a house. It seems like that's where we.

Davis Younts, Esq.: No, that that's absolutely right and and people might think that's farfetched, but, but listen, Sam, that's exactly what the d o d and the D o D and the D O J did as it pertains to the Marine Corps case in Florida.

Davis Younts, Esq.: That's going to trial in January, that case on the violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And, [00:09:00] and the constitutional rights of Marines is scheduled to go to trial in January. As soon as, as soon as it became clear that the N D A was gonna pass, that the DOD and the DOJ filed a motion and they said to the judge in Florida, Hey, the mandate's gonna end anyway.

Davis Younts, Esq.: So we don't need, we can delay depositions of our senior leaders and we can delay trial because it doesn't matter, like we think. That sounds absurd. We think your exam example sounds absurd, but, but it's not because that's precisely what they. You know, they're, they're trying to create this appearance, this impression potentially that, Hey, we ended the mandate.

Davis Younts, Esq.: What do you want? What else do you want? And just ignore the, just the, the consequences, the devastation that an illegal policy, a poorly executed policy, poorly thought out policy has had on the military, military readiness, 10,000 plus people that have already been discharged, thousands and thousands that we can't even track that have retired or.

Davis Younts, Esq.: Early or left at the end of their contract who were planning to stay [00:10:00] because of this policy. So all of that, all of that is already already at issue. So you talk about how we go on the offense. I mean, part of it is what, what we're doing right now, this conversation that we're having right now and saying, Hey, and we've, I've talked about this before.

Davis Younts, Esq.: I've talked about this with you. You know, the rest of the, the world, it seems the American public has sort of moved on from the pandemic, right? Covid seems. A bad joke, something everybody wants to forget, and yet we're still dealing with it. We've been dealing with it the whole time in the military, and so now we're on that same path because now we're going to see a situation where, There's this tremendous inequity, and I think that's how we have to talk about it.

Davis Younts, Esq.: It's a question of timing now, right? It's a question of timing between those who quote unquote violated an order and those who didn't, and it could be a matter of 24 hours, depending on when an injunction came down or when this mandate comes down. So you're going to see. Just unequal treatment. So I think that's a big part of this.

Davis Younts, Esq.: I think making the military understand and see, I think making [00:11:00] judges understand and see that inequity. And I do think when we go to administrative separation boards, If, if we reach a point where we're in a board and we have an officer with a stellar record, all they wanna do is serve. This is the only blemish on their career and there is no mandate anymore.

Davis Younts, Esq.: I think it's gonna be harder and harder for military officers to look those individuals in the eye and say, yeah, you know what, we're gonna kick you out. Some will, some will, but I think many are gonna have a hard time with that cuz there still are people, you know, good people in the military. Despite all of this we wish more of them had taken a stand, but they're still out there.

Davis Younts, Esq.: And at some point, you know, in this whole process, they've, they've understood, they've, they've seen now, Hey, this is illegal. Now I see it. Now I understand why you're taking this stand. and we have had people convert it, if you will, once they actually look at the law, because as you said, 10 usc Title 21 of the US Code, it's simple.

Davis Younts, Esq.: It's very, very simple. It's not hard to read. It's very, very clear what it means. And it was passed to prevent things exactly like what [00:12:00] we're doing, dealing with here. And

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: I, I like the way you stated this. You and I may be misquoting you Exactly. But the idea is it was a poorly rolled out policy. and, and I think what you're getting at is it was written correctly.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: The words on the paper were correct. So in a court of law it will look like everything was done properly, but the way it's actually been pushed out, there is no FDA-approved product that's available even to this day. And they've, they've pushed a mislabeled product and that has the word CO on it, which is fraud.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And so there's people that have actually committed.

Davis Younts, Esq.: Right. And that's what I mean by by poorly executed, right? And, and one of the things that you have to do, and it does open people's eyes, I think, is when you say, look, the, the d o D policy that was put out, and then the orders, you know, in the Army, FRA oh five that was put out, make it clear, hey, you [00:13:00] cannot force someone to take the e uua.

Davis Younts, Esq.: It has to be the FDA approved product. But there was no recognition of the reality. as of the 24th of August when this was rolled out and mandated that there would not be an FDA approved product available. And as far as you and I know as far as any experts I've talked to, to know, no, there still is no FDA approved product, right?

Davis Younts, Esq.: So whatever the cause for that is, right, whatever, whatever happened to to cause that, and we could speculate on that. But the reality is there was no FDA approved product available. Was it as simple as the Pfizer and Moderna didn't wanna. Because it wasn't financially lucrative because they have all of this stockpile of e U A products.

Davis Younts, Esq.: I don't know the answers to those things. I don't speculate on those things. Was the DOD just caught off guard by the fact that there was no FDA product. I, I don't know that those explanations are there, but the reality is, hey, the orders, the policy was written correctly. But it couldn't be executed, right?

Davis Younts, Esq.: It couldn't be carried out, and that's been the impossibility issue [00:14:00] has been an issue that.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: and what blows my mind is like exactly what you said. The policy was written correctly. And if you read through the policy and you read it carefully and you understand what words mean and that words have meaning and you see that you can take the FDA approved or which means new, new statement, or you can take the authorized for use and then you walk over, like I did, I walked over to where they had the vial sitting there.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: I asked if I could take a picture. I took a picture and they all say, e u a for emergency use only. Boom. , but yet all of this happened. I have those pictures, I have 'em timestamped everything. So, and, and then what's even more striking is a year later, almost to the day, they gave me another order to take this co-parenting labeled product, which I claim is fraud.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And I claim that because of the phone call that happened with a, a Pfizer representative who said it was made in France and there is no FDA-approved manufacturing site in France at that time. And yet, even if we took it on face value and thought that that really was co and not co labeled, [00:15:00] that would be proof or should be proof that my previous order was an unlawful and illegal order, but yet nobody cares.

Davis Younts, Esq.: Well, that, that's right. And I've seen that same issue because you don't e you don't see an any, any documentation filed anywhere. You don't see the D o D even claiming that they have access to a comity labeled product until, of 2022, you don't even see them even claim that until May of 2022. The other thing that's interesting, and this is kind of inside baseball for everybody, but there was one point where the d o D thought about taking the official position position that the E U A and F D A approved.

Davis Younts, Esq.: Products were interchangeable and therefore they could just force people to take the e u a product, right? Remember this, there's a memo. It still exists. That memo existed in time. And, and the challenge with that memo is, you know, it was written by an acting deputy under secretary, number one. Number two is a PhD, not an attorney.

Davis Younts, Esq.: And if [00:16:00] anything, what she was talking about, what Dr. Aron was talking about was medically interchangeable versus legally interchangeable because at the same time the FDA was saying these products are legally distinct. So the analogy I use for that, it's like the difference between a wooden baseball bat and an aluminum baseball bat and major league baseball, right?

Davis Younts, Esq.: You can try and hit a baseball with an aluminum bat or a wooden bat, but you're not, not allowed to use an aluminum bat in a major league baseball game, and you can't have, you know, Deputy manager for the Yankees or the American League say, well, we think that they're interchangeable because we use 'em for the same purpose to hit a baseball so that that counts.

Davis Younts, Esq.: We can get around your rule. So again, I just, I think it's, it's, it's important to note those two things. Like you said, they're not going back and saying to the people that they ordered to take this in in November. 2021 and say saying, Hey, sorry about that. That order we gave you was an unlawful order because we didn't have the FDA approved product until May.

Davis Younts, Esq.: Right now, [00:17:00] again, we think it's a bait and switch, but all the evidence shows it's a bait and switch. But, but at best, they would have to go back and reissue all of those orders and recognize that the initial orders that were given were not lawful orders or impossible to carry out. There's, there's been none of that.

Davis Younts, Esq.: There's been none of that. And so, you know, again, I think the other piece though, we have to look, we can learn from history and we can look forward and I think the impact that has me very, very concerned for a lot of my clients is in this interim time where we've been waiting, particularly those clients that filed a religious accommodation and they're waiting for the case to go to trial, air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, right?

Davis Younts, Esq.: All of those folks, they've been waiting, they have been subjected. in large part, some pretty heinous things, and it goes back to the kind of treatment and coercion they received before there was even a mandate. People forget this. We have a short memory, but I pray they don't. My experience based on my clients, the Navy was [00:18:00] the absolute worst.

Davis Younts, Esq.: The Marines did some crazy things to try to force this vaccine, but the Navy was the worst. And I say the Navy was worse because if you didn't get before the mandate even came out, if you didn't get the vaccine. , you were prohibited from going to church in many commands for a long period of time. You were, you were prohibited from going on leave.

Davis Younts, Esq.: You were permitted from going on t d y, you were permitted from doing training. You couldn't spend the holiday with your, with your family. And, and we had situations where if you were assigned to a ship and your ship was deploying, if you were unvaccinated, you had to go report 14 days early, quarantine, 14 days early before anybody else on the.

Davis Younts, Esq.: And when you got back from that 6, 7, 8, 9 month deployment, that cruise, you had to quarantine again for 14 days. So all of that coercion was going on, all of that treatment was going on. That's before we had a mandate. And the problem is that hasn't ended even with this, this injunction in place for the [00:19:00] religious accommodation.

Davis Younts, Esq.: So some people have deployed. I know of a sailor that spent eight months confined to a ship on a deployment, couldn't do a single port call because he wouldn't get a. , right? He wouldn't get a booster. He got the original sh original shots. He, he, he realized, Hey, I have a religious objection to this. He filed a religious accommodation.

Davis Younts, Esq.: He was objecting to getting the booster. The booster is not mandatory. So they say, but he couldn't, couldn't do anything, couldn't leave the ship, couldn't do a single port call, and he had to quarantine. So the problem I have, the big fear I have is the NDA ends the mandate. , but what kind of coercion are, are all, are you gonna face, are, are my clients going to face moving forward on all of this?

Davis Younts, Esq.: What kind of coercion are they gonna continue to get over the boosters and how's that gonna end? And are you going to end up with, you know, sort of two classes of people in the military, those that are, that are refusing this, this product under the law? Those that. [00:20:00] Filed a religious accommodation or waiting for that litigation to go through and those that aren't, and you're gonna have those, those objectors if you will.

Davis Younts, Esq.: Not promoted, not going t d y, not going to training, not being able to deploy and, and the rest of the military moving on. So we're still gonna see a tremendous impact on these individuals and it's gonna be a, a huge problem and I think it is gonna create some rifts if we're not.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: The next thing that I wanted to to ask you about, cuz I've heard this too, as part of the restoration, is, we'll, we'll give 'em their back pay, we'll put 'em back where they were. We'll promote 'em if they were supposed to be promoted and they can go back to service. Well, people like me and most people that I've talked to, want to take the uniform off and never put it on again.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: I never wanna put my posi self in a position where someone can have this much power over my life to destroy my good name, to remove my medical license for doing everything appropriately. What recourse do we. in a general sense, not specifically obviously,

Davis Younts, Esq.: well right. in, in a, in a general sense. I, I think that's gonna be really, [00:21:00] really important.

Davis Younts, Esq.: And there's a couple of big picture things I wanna say about that. Some of this goes back to how this was handled in the first place. And then what to look forward to. Cause I think there's some general guidance to put out to people. But I, I just wanna say this. I mean, your frustration, my frustration with all of this really is because of our oath to the Constitution and people think, Hey, I'm exaggerating.

Davis Younts, Esq.: I'm sensationalizing this. No l let me lay it out. Let me lay it out for you. No, you're absolutely right. But, but here's the thing here, here's why I say that, that that oath to the cons. , right? It's about understanding the function and design of our government. And it's not that we worship the Constitution, it's the principles that it's founded upon.

Davis Younts, Esq.: But under that document, it says, we have three branches of government. We have legislative, executive, and judicial, and here's the issue. The fear that the founders have. The reason we have Article three, the way the reason the Constitution is written, the way it's written is there's always a fear that the executive branch as well as, because in part [00:22:00] because the military falls under the executive branch, right?

Davis Younts, Esq.: The fear is that's gonna become powerful. You're gonna have this all-powerful object executive that uses the military to take over and, and, and put us in a tyrannical position as a. . So one of the things that makes is clear in our constitution is, hey, Congress makes the law, Congress passes the law.

Davis Younts, Esq.: The executive branch simply carries out the law, and that's it. That's their responsibility. So what we see in this situation is you have two laws, in particular the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and then we have Title 10 and Title 21 of the United States Code that that the executive has chosen not to.

Davis Younts, Esq.: Right. The executive is saying, Hey, that's the law. The law is clear, but we are not going to follow it. And the DOJ j even said at the Circuit court oral argument in the Doster case, the Ohio case affecting the Air Force, the DOJ attorney argued, Hey, we don't have to follow the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Davis Younts, Esq.: We, it only matters if we're sued in court and and [00:23:00] forced to follow it. Otherwise we don't have to. We don't have to. It just provides a remedy if we violate the law rather. Then something we have to follow. So, so we see this potential for a constitutional crisis when the executives saying, yeah, the law is clear, but we're not gonna follow it because of an emergency, or because we don't want to, or because it's not convenient or for political reasons, whatever it is.

Davis Younts, Esq.: When the executive says, we're not gonna follow the law, that's, that's when our oath begins to matter. That's when our oath begins to matter so much because it says, Hey, executive, follow the constitution, follow the law as it's. So what you see now, and, and again, most people don't see it this way, but this N D A A and ending the mandate is actually the Constitution working as it should, right?

Davis Younts, Esq.: Because Congress is saying to the executive, Hey, we're not going to fund you. You're not gonna have money to execute your duties as far as the military goes unless you end the mandate. Right? So that's stepping them. That's them stepping in to say it. We [00:24:00] know and and many leaders in Congress understand why this is an unlawful mandate, why the enforcement of it's been wrong, why it's been a violation of religious freedom.

Davis Younts, Esq.: They're not getting that language into the N D A A yet. Maybe they'll be following legislation, but this is a strong signal and it's a pretty extraordinary signal for Congress to do that, to limit the executive. and try to get them to follow the law by cutting off the source of funding. So all of that is a background, I think just kind of background to the question you were asking, so looking forward, what does that mean?

Davis Younts, Esq.: What do we do, what do we do for, for those that that no longer wanna serve? You know, today, for me personally, this is, this is my 20 year anniversary. This is Oath of Office 20 years ago today. I did see that today, and I have an approved retirement date of. All right. Congratulations. I'm supposed to retire effective tomorrow.

Davis Younts, Esq.: So, you know, I for me, I'm, I'm going to get to that point as in, in the retired reserves. But there are so many that, that [00:25:00] feel very strongly that there's no point to continued service under these circumstances. Right. And there's many, many people. I talk to people every day. Part of what I'm doing is just counseling and praying with.

Davis Younts, Esq.: About that issue. And part of it is this, you know, it really has become a, an ethical, moral and a religious issue for so many because we're seeing a scenario where we believe our responsibility, our moral, ethical, and religious responsibility is to the oath, is to the Constitution. We're swearing before God to uphold it, but if we're part of an organization that's not doing that anymore, that's a problem.

Davis Younts, Esq.: But we see many, many others. This started before the vaccine. And it's continued. We have an organization that is, that is not, if you are a orthodox conservative Christian, you believe in the Bible. You believe all of scripture for all of life. It is very, very difficult to serve in the military today. And again, that's not an exaggeration because that biblical teaching, that foundation, the foundation of our nation, the ideas and [00:26:00] precepts, the Constitution itself is based.

Davis Younts, Esq.: Are are not consistent with the policy that's being pushed out consistently. So I think many that are in a situation are gonna be in a situation to, to leave when their contract is up to retire as quickly as they possibly can to request permission to leave early. Because in many respects, what a lot of us are our conscientious objectors.

Davis Younts, Esq.: right? We cannot follow God. We cannot be consistent with our faith and continue to serve in an organization that's asked us to do these things. And so that might not be seen as sort of the traditional conscientious director viewpoint, but it, but it really is that, and, and frankly, that's how, maybe how some of us should have been treated anyway.

Davis Younts, Esq.: If the d o D had the legal authority to do it, they had the product available and they said, Hey, you're gonna do this regardless of your religious convictions, then they, then they could have said, okay, but we're gonna put you through a conscientious objector process and you're gonna leave, not punishment.

Davis Younts, Esq.: You're gonna leave with an honorable discharge and we're gonna thank you for your service and say to you, [00:27:00] Hey, you know what? We respect your religious faith, but be, we think this is mission. and because we think it's mission critical there, there's no place for you anymore. But that wasn't the priority.

Davis Younts, Esq.: The priority was 100% of the military shots in arms. The priority was always shots in arms, not the mission, not readiness, not respecting the law, not respecting the constitution, not respecting religious faith. So regardless of why, political reasons, other reasons, nefarious reasons, whatever they were, it was always about 100.

Davis Younts, Esq.: Compliance 100% shots and arms. You saw that more clearly in your position than I did, but it's, that's absolutely what the goal was and what the policy was.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: I wanna take you back to something you said that, you know, Congress is using its power of the purse, which they should, and they need to understand how powerful they truly are with that, that power right there.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: But we've seen this played out before maybe not you and me, but in history, we've seen Andrew Jackson where he was driving the natives off of the reservations, [00:28:00] and they, he went to court, and court said, all right, stop. And then he basically said, stop me. H how do we get people to follow. .

Davis Younts, Esq.: Well, I, I think that's a huge challenge, but I think that we're gonna see, we're gonna see a determination and I pray that we see a continued determination of people that, that are not going to comply.

Davis Younts, Esq.: That they're not gonna compromise and they're going to ply at least say, this is not, this is not how it works. And we've talked about this before, but one of the interesting things about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Supreme Court verified this in 2000. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is one of those laws where an individual government actor can be held personally, financially liable for violating the law.

Davis Younts, Esq.: What does that mean? What does that look like? That means an individual military officer, an individual military commander that is violating the, that. Can be held personally, financially liable for the [00:29:00] damages they've caused in court in federal court. The Supreme Court has upheld that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Davis Younts, Esq.: So there are very few situations where the government gives up sovereign immunity, where the government gives up sovereign immunity as it pertains to the military, right? Very, very rare that a military member can sue the military in any cap. especially to get financial damages. Normally it's just to stop some action against them so they can continue to serve.

Davis Younts, Esq.: But it's very, very rare that any individual commander or government agent within the military would be held personally responsible. But the Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows that, and I think that's fascinating because one of the things I'm curious to see is, , does that happen here? Is there going to be litigation where someone says, wow, this was a violation.

Davis Younts, Esq.: This had a significant negative financial impact on someone, and it's you commander that issued this order. Your name's on the paper ordering this. You did this and, and the process was broken. You [00:30:00] were enforcing a religious freedom, you know, a violation of religious, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Davis Younts, Esq.: Now you're personally liable. Uncle Sam's not coming to back you up anymore. Uncle Sam's gonna wash their. It's gonna be on you cuz you violated the law.

Davis Younts, Esq.: So that kind of personal accountability I think is one of the fallouts from this, and that would make a huge difference because then there would be a resurgence of a need for military commanders to, to understand the law and follow their oath.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: I have a question for you, and this may be I don't mean to to put you out there, but. Have you or any other lawyers come together and worked on drafting something so it can be done? I don't know the proper term, but like I can do it for myself to my own lawyer, pro se, is that what it's called?

Davis Younts, Esq.: Yes.

Davis Younts, Esq.: Yes. There are. There have been some pro se efforts out there,

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: For the religious accommodation issue.

Davis Younts, Esq.: Yeah. On the religious accommodation issue. Some folks have tried that. There's some, there's some other litigation that I'm aware of [00:31:00] that's out. that relates to masking and other things, and I think there'll be more.

Davis Younts, Esq.: But pro se I mean, that's just refer, that refers to someone going in without an attorney. That's been tried not to a lot of success on this, but I think people will continue to push that envelope because they have no other recourse. Right. If you, if you follow the system internal to the military, and, and many, many, many have done that, right?

Davis Younts, Esq.: They, you meet with the chaplain, you file your religious accom. It's not properly processed or it's denied, then you appeal it. It's denied. Again, it's not a proper process. People file IG complaints. We saw the ig, the Department of Defense IG said, Hey, secretary of Defense. It appears clear based on just a quick statistical analysis and the information we see you're violating the law and that you have been.

Davis Younts, Esq.: and, and D O D does nothing about it. So when you see a situation where the process that's in place isn't being followed by the military, even the watchdog for the military, the D O D I G warns them, [00:32:00] Hey, this doesn't look good. This looks like you're violating the law and there's no reaction, there's no action based on that.

Davis Younts, Esq.: There's no change based on that. Then federal, that's when federal courts get very perturbed. You know, federal courts are hesitant to get involved in internal affairs, but if the process chain of commands follow. The administrative process is followed, IG process is followed and there's, there's no intervention, there's no stopping it.

Davis Younts, Esq.: That's when you see Congress act. That's when you see federal courts get involved,

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: because I would love to see the system be absolutely flooded with people like those 10,000 that you mentioned each, every single one of them, or maybe even even half of them, overwhelming and flooding the system with these pro se arguments because of the religious accommodation or because their medical accommodation was revoked for.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: non-medical reasons for political reasons rather than medical reasons.

Davis Younts, Esq.: And I, and I think that's, you know, I think that's a, that's an interesting part about this because just like with the anthrax cases, it took years to restore so [00:33:00] many people and, and get, get them restored and many, many weren't. We're gonna see the same thing here.

Davis Younts, Esq.: We're gonna see, see the same thing here. And I think the other thing we're gonna see moving forward I mean, imagine a scenario, and this is not far fetched at all, but imagine a scenario where, it filed a religious accommodation request. It was denied. They appealed it, it was denied as part of the blanket denial of all of this.

Davis Younts, Esq.: Right? So it's clear just as it was with everybody else, it was just a blanket denial, a violation of the law. Then that, then that soldier, that airman goes says, okay, I, I don't wanna do this, but I feel like I don't have a choice. I'm gonna go get vaccinated. So they're, they're being forced to violate their religious conviction and some did.

Davis Younts, Esq.: Right. And then they're. , they're injured a re as a result of receiving this product. And now you're in a situation where, you know, I, I think there's gonna be potentially years of litigation re related to that. And again, that's not farfetched. The, if you saw it this week, the fda, the [00:34:00] FDA is now recognizing a study that shows a tie to blood clots and this and this.

Davis Younts, Esq.: The FDA is talking about that now that there's a correlation there. So you know, if our fears, some of the fears I have about the safety of this experimental product, cuz we have no, I don't care who you are, you can't say we have long term data on the safety of this cuz it hasn't existed long term. So the reality is, if, if this is as bad, as many believe it is, many of the experts I'm talking to think this product is, you're gonna see a situation where someone's religious freedom rights were violated, they were put in an impossible situation.

Davis Younts, Esq.: They, they, they took it even though it was vi it wasn't a lawful order, they were told it was, even though it violated their religiou freedom and now they're injured. I mean, from a personal injury standpoint, from a damages standpoint, if those, those people bring cases, I mean, you're absolutely right. 10,000 of those cases more.

Davis Younts, Esq.: What does that look like? That's a, that's a huge [00:35:00] effort and I hope it comes.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Yeah. And I, you know, we're just starting to talk about this now, but it's kinda the elephant in the room. You know, I've. Been talking about all these other people who have been harmed for their career and harmed for this, and harmed.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: But the true, the real people that have been harmed are those that have actually been medically harmed. Like I have a 26 year old friend who can't walk across a parking lot without being winded. He was a PT stud before. You know, I, we both have a friend, Dr. He's talked about it many times in public forums.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Dr. Chambers, how, you know, he was falling at 10,000 feet and got ver. . It's like that's not the time to have vertigo. I mean, just all these health consequences. We, you and I both know many people that have been harmed, and I'm sure there's, oh, I'm certain there's many that have died from the shot. There will be many who die in the near future who should not die because of the heart failure that they're experiencing from the myocarditis.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Typically, heart failure survival rate is like five years. Well, we don't know what it's gonna be like for this. Could it be five years? Could it be 10 years? Could they have normal survival rates? Could they [00:36:00] have one year? We don't.

Davis Younts, Esq.: Yeah, that, that pending wave, we just, we, we have no idea what it's gonna look like, but that's gonna come out into litigation in an environment where the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and clear federal law was violated and it, and it's not gonna look pleasant. And, you know, a couple pieces on that one from a medical standpoint, you know, I, I, I represented an Air Force officer and, and what I can say, , you know, he'd had an adverse reaction to two different families of antibiotics.

Davis Younts, Esq.: Okay? Two different families of antibiotics. Adverse reaction almost killed him, right? Father had the same kind of history. One of the things that the CDC and the FDA said, and the guidances is, Hey, if, if you've had a reaction to two different families of antibiotics, it's count contraindicated that you take this product.

Davis Younts, Esq.: That's just, that's just in the paperwork. So we took. Showed it to the, to, to the military, [00:37:00] and the military said, no, you don't fit into the exemption categories that we're granting. We're, we're not worried about that. You're not gonna get an exemption for that. So he said, okay, let me do some more work. In the meantime, his civilian sister and brother both had severe adverse reactions to the product.

Davis Younts, Esq.: So two people that are genetically very, very similar to him have severe adverse reactions. One of 'em had to be hospital. , she collapsed within 20 minutes of getting the injection. And then he goes to see an allergist, lays everything out to an expert. Tricare approved allergist presents all of that information.

Davis Younts, Esq.: The Air Force denies the medical exemption. They deny it. So, so, you know, I, I bring that up and say that, you know, so many people see that situation. They can see the unfairness of it, but there are many military members in similar situ. who then got the vaccination. But I mean, it, it really, it's not an [00:38:00] exaggeration to say it could have killed him.

Davis Younts, Esq.: And, and you know, you can't speak to it much, but you know, I know for a fact that he spoke to an Air Force doctor, a uniform wearing Air Force medical provider who said, if I were you, I would not receive this injection. There is no way I would receive it. There's no way I would let a family member receive it.

Davis Younts, Esq.: But you're not going to get a medical exempt. Because it doesn't fit into the categories that the Air Force has outlined, and those only categories are you're pregnant or you've had an adverse reaction to the first injection, and then it will only be a temporary one.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: That's so mind blowing. That's so upsetting that someone could see the truth and not do the right thing because if he didn't give him that mantle of protection, he's basically sending this guy to go die.

Davis Younts, Esq.: That's right and And he was told in writing, he was told in writing, this evidence came outta his board. He was told in writing, [00:39:00] yeah. By the appeal authority for this medical exemption, a doctor, uniform wearing physician, and oh six, yes. It is entirely possible that you'll have an adverse reaction to this.

Davis Younts, Esq.: I recommend that you get admitted to a hospital that has the capability of treating you immediately, particularly for Ana. Before you receive the injection, if you're uncomfortable with the risk,

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: let me pause you there for a second because that is, that is so disgusting. So mind blowing, like medicine has, and this is an oh six, so this means he's, he's an Air Force colonel, means he's probably been practicing medicine for almost 20 years and he's saying, well, we have to get this shot so much.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Go get yourself admitted and get, get it on, on the floor in a hospital bed so that you don't. Why don't you just protect the man and do your job, do your duty and say, no, you should not get this. Oh my goodness, I, I know why this

Davis Younts, Esq.: stuff is what makes me so hot. Medical providers, right? But, but, but because medical [00:40:00] providers credentials are threatened if they grant exemptions outside of that window or they recommend too many outside of that window, and that's where I go back to the question like, why, why is it that the policy with, with.

Davis Younts, Esq.: so-called vaccine with this mandate has been 100% compliance, 100% shots in arms. And that's been the priority, not anything else. And when that's your priority and not anything else from a military perspective, you are going to have negative consequences. And we could go through history and talk about that.

Davis Younts, Esq.: We could talk about withdrawal. From nations where what we're given is not an objective to, Hey, we need to have this accomplished. We need to be able to do A, B, or C safely. We need to have all our equipment out, but rather it's an arbitrary deadline and we're gonna be out by that deadline. Right? I mean, we can look at military history, we can see that, and we can see where, when it's anything other than military readiness, the mission following.

Davis Younts, Esq.: And some other outside, whether it's a political [00:41:00] factor you know, monetary factor, whatever it is, you see disastrous consequences cause we're getting away from where we should be following the law, doing the mission.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: That's, I'm, I'm still shocked over here , that a doctor would do that. I mean, that is whoever that guy is, I would please have. put in an ethical violation at hi that doctor's state board, because that is completely unacceptable and that is why we have state boards so that we can police ourselves. They've been policing me for doing the right thing, but this guy needs to be stopped because that is dangerous.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And who knows how many other people he's recommended that same thing too.

Davis Younts, Esq.: That's right. And that's just one story. I mean, there, there are multiple stories of, of members of the Air Force who I've spoken to, you know, those that had a significant adverse reaction to the first injection. we're given a temporary exemption and then told after a few months, Hey, you gotta go get the second one.

Davis Younts, Esq.: You know, those, it's just, it's, it's been difficult. There are [00:42:00] others who are having severe adverse reactions that are now having difficulty getting compensation because they're, they're reservists or in the guard, you know, they got it in a duty status that happened, but, but no one wants to recognize that it's a result of, of the injection.

Davis Younts, Esq.: So there's big problems there.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: and this, this is why we need justice. This is why like, just getting rid of this mandate is not good enough. There needs to be walls that, that are immobile, that keep this from ever happening again. Because in two years, in, in six months, we could be in the same position, except they'll have the knowledge to know, well, let's not leave this avenue open for them to defend themselves.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Let's not leave this avenue open for them to defend themselfs.

Davis Younts, Esq.: That's right. And you know, we need to, we need to stay focused on, we need to stay focused on learning from history. We need to learn the lessons from this. We need to learn the examples from this. Because part of it is when we look at the recruiting crisis, we talk about the recruiting crisis.

Davis Younts, Esq.: You know, there are some who think, [00:43:00] oh, well now that the mandate is ended right now that this mandate has ended, we're not gonna have a recruiting problem anymore because all these people, all these misled fools that don't wanna join the military, cuz they're scared of a. Now they'll come and join.

Davis Younts, Esq.: Right? That's been the mentality. You, you, we've seen that mentality from the beginning. They thought they were gonna be able to bully everybody into getting the shot in the first place. That's not going to cure all of the problem because people have watched what's happened throughout this process and they have seen it.

Davis Younts, Esq.: And what you've seen is, if you look at the surveys, the military's gone from one of the most trusted institutions in our. and that that trust level is dropping off precipitously in public perception. There there's a reason for that. There's a reason for that. And I think we, we have to be very, very aware of that.

Davis Younts, Esq.: You know, so, you know, I'm, I'm retiring here and, and I'm looking at this and, and I know I'm, what I'm gonna be praying for. I know what I'm gonna be working for, which is that we. You know, after this purge of Christians is [00:44:00] over, and, and hopefully we can get this turned around, that there will be people that, that come forward, that step up, that have learned for this will take stands and we can change military culture, but part of that's gonna come from what, what's the moral and ethical standard that we're gonna abide by?

Davis Younts, Esq.: Is it, is it fear or, or is it, is there a shared morality? Is there a shared. That, that we all believe in. We swear an oath under God to the Constitution. Let's start with that and, and move forward together with that shared ethic. Because if, if we don't, we're becoming unmoored from anything and we don't have a shared ethic in, in the military anymore.

Davis Younts, Esq.: And the strangers are those who believe in the Constitution, who take that oath seriously, who would die for that oath and, and believe that our nation has been blessed tremendously by God, and, and it's just become very, very d. To nearly impossible for a strong Christian to continue to serve. And I pray we can change that.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: I think that's a perfect little segue into the [00:45:00] next part that I wanna discuss with you. And now I'm sure there are some atheists on this side, but it seems that most people that I've talked to an overwhelming majority are Christian and some, some Jewish faith. I'm sure there's some other faith too. I just haven't had the opportunity to run into them yet.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: But it, it truly seems that this is a war against a religion in particular. And some other people seem to fall into that, that undesirable category as well, just because, you know, they're getting targeted too. But it's all religious people mostly, it seems, and it's hard to make an argument that this is anything other than a war in the unseen.

Davis Younts, Esq.: I, I 100% believe that my, my faith informs that and, and I think this war has been coming. I think, you know, we weren't, we weren't ready . I I think many of us weren't ready. I don't think I was entirely ready. I think many Christians within the military weren't ready for, for this unseen battle. But it, but it's been coming because we've seen, I mean, look, I, I remember sitting at an Air Force base on [00:46:00] orders.

Davis Younts, Esq.: for going through Antit extremism training and, and I'll never forget what's there. So everything people see in the media as far as, oh, religious extremism and other things, it's there. But the most chilling thing is just the statement that if you know anyone who's part of an organization that believes in something so much that they use language like I would be willing to die for.

Davis Younts, Esq.: This is an extremist. And I just stop that. I look around the room and I'm like, that's supposed to be all of. That's supposed to be every single one of us. And so we take an oath, some moments like that where I say, you know, wow, this is, this is an organization that I'm, I'm just, I, that's what I say. I feel like a stranger in a foreign land, right?

Davis Younts, Esq.: We're, we're losing that. Where, where did that go? What's, what's the moral unethical basis for what we're doing? And it has ramifications. It has ramifications when we. Things like the, the sexual ethic within the military, the way people are treated within the military, [00:47:00] all of that, all of that comes together.

Davis Younts, Esq.: And, and we have seen, you know, chaplains pushed out of the military because of their stance on same sex marriage. We've seen all of those things. Those things are only gonna continue, you know, and, and it's gonna move from this treatment of those who have a good faith, religious object. To this experimental treatment, to anyone who refuses to put their pronouns in their signature block on their official military email.

Davis Younts, Esq.: Right. That's coming. All of that's coming. If we're not careful and we're not prepared to take a stand on it. So you know, I pray that God will move. I pray for revival because this is a sin issue. This is a spiritual battle that we're waging.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Thank you. That's

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: perfect.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Is there anything else you wanna leave us with?

Davis Younts, Esq.: No, I, I think my biggest thing is I , I don't want to be a total downer, especially before, before the holiday. I, [00:48:00] we can't miss the fact that this is a significant step. Let, let's not miss the fact that there was a critical mass of, of senators and congressmen that were not going to move forward on the N D A A, no matter the cost.

Davis Younts, Esq.: Without this provision in it. And I, and I think that's huge, and it did reach a critical mass. It was very close, but in the Senate, that's what it took. It took 12 senators coming together and saying, I will not compromise on this. Absolutely. We wanted them to do more. We know this does very little. But it, but it is encouraging to, to know that they're listening, that they're hearing, that they're paying attention more and more seem to be listening and paying attention every day.

Davis Younts, Esq.: And, and that's where it starts. We need Congress to do their job as the legislative branch, to, to use every tool in their tool book to reign in an executive when they're going too far. That's what we need to continue to pray for. And we're seeing judges throughout the united. That are willing to take a stand and do the extraordinary thing of stopping the military from [00:49:00] violating the law.

Davis Younts, Esq.: Again, that's rare in our court system. That's rare in federal courts that the, they're willing to do it. So there's absolutely hope. God can absolutely move and change. Revival can happen and, and this change to the N D A A while, it's not, it's not much. It's a positive step in the right direction. And what's encouraging to me about it.

Davis Younts, Esq.: Those that were willing to take a stand, those that were willing to take a stand in Congress on this issue and not compromise, and hopefully that gives them courage for, for the rest of the fight that we need.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: I agree. It's, it's a win and, you know, celebrate today, but tomorrow get back up and put the, the duty uniform of the full armor of God on and get ready to keep standing.

Davis Younts, Esq.: That's right.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Thank you brother.

Davis Younts, Esq.: God. Thank you. God bless.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Just a reminder for everyone out there in duty, uniform of the day, [00:50:00] the full armor of God. Let's all make courage more contagious than fear.