Objection to Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims — U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden (Dkt. 300)

Summary

John M. Neuhart, who describes himself as a retired US Navy Officer, files an Objection to Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims in U.S. Navy SEALs v. Biden, Document 300, filed 07/16/24. The objection states that a Religious Accommodation Request was filed on 28 October 2021 and denied by letter on 7 December 2021. Its sections cover accountability, administrative records and monetary damages, where it says damages could reasonably exceed $4 billion. A further section compares the Navy's treatment of class members to its treatment of prisoners of war and asks for promotions with backpay. The objection also addresses the training programs the settlement requires and urges the Court to consider the objection in its entirety.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 300 Filed 07/16/24 Pagei1of7 PagelD 8358

OBJECTION TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS In
U.S. Navy SEALs v. Biden, 4:22-cv-01236-0 (N.D. Tex.)

To: United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
From: John M. Neuhart Il

|, Jonn M. Neuhart Il, am a retired US Navy Officer, and by virtue of having filed a
Religious Accommodation Request regarding the Navy mandate of the COVID-19
injection’ on 28 October 2021, | am a member of the Navy class as described in U.S.
Navy SEALs v. Biden, 4:22-cv-01236-O (N.D. Tex).

Paragraph 1 of my Religious Accommodation letter reads, “/n accordance with the Free
Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, | claim the
right to practice my religion without burden.”*

My respectful request for Religious Accommodation and my claim to my First
Amendment rights were both denied via a letter from the Deputy Chief of Naval
Operations on 7 December 2021.2

As aclass member, | object to the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of this
settlement agreement for the following reasons:

ACCOUNTABILITY

The present settlement fails to impose accountability upon Defendants or their agents
for their violations and transgressions. This lack of accountability directly perpetuates
ongoing infringements of the First Amendment, thereby sustaining harm to class
members.

Defendants and their agents devised and implemented a Standard Operating Procedure
(SOP) to issue a uniform denial template for each Religious Accommodation Request
submitted by Navy sailors, without adhering to the requisite individualized review
mandated by law and military regulations.

Additionally, Defendants and their agents, deprived me of my constitutional rights even
after | specifically asserted my rights.

1 Letter: From: CDR John Neuhart Il To: CNO Ni Via: COMMANDER NAVY REGION MID-ATLA TIC, SUBJ:
REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY WAIVER OF POLICY IN SUPPORT OF RELIGIOUS PRACTICE, Date: 2, 8 OCT 2021, 1 i) |
2 Ibid 1

3 Letter: SUBJ: “REQUEST FOR RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION THROUGH WAIVER OF IMMUNIZATION

REQUIREMENTS” From: Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Manpower, Personnel, Training and Education) (N1)

1730 Ser N1/116755
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O0 Document 300 Filed 07/16/24 Page2of7 PagelD 8359

Defendants and their agents knowingly disregarded statutory provisions, the rights of
service members, and the United States Constitution. This entire episode has proven to
be a national embarrassment for the Navy, eroding public trust and exacerbating the
military's recruitment challenges.

The Navy's leadership has opted not to rectify their strategic missteps concerning
COVID-19 mandates or earnestly address ongoing First Amendment violations within
the Navy. By promoting and issuing awards to co-Defendants and their agents, they
have further demonstrated a disregard for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the
First Amendment, and the trust placed in them by the citizens of the nation.

Navy leadership has consistently exhibited a pattern of First Amendment violations,
disregard for the rights of service members, and contempt for the law. Given the
persistent harm to class members, this matter warrants further judicial scrutiny.
Defendants and their agents are unprepared for settlement as they have yet to fully
acknowledge the extent of the harm inflicted.

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS

The remedy offered proves inadequate, as it merely obliges the Navy to rectify records
falling within narrowly defined parameters. Significant harm occurred outside the
boundaries delineated in the settlement including Service members receiving
unfavorable evaluations that fell short of qualifying as adverse evaluations. These
assessments hindered their career advancement opportunities, thereby depriving them
of deserved promotions in 2022, 2023, and 2024 which significantly impact retirement
benefits.

Merely correcting records cannot undo the past. Only by convening special promotion
boards for affected class members can these injustices be remedied, an option not
provided for in the settlement.

Other actions, such as removal from leadership roles, cannot be rectified with a mere
annotation in an administrative record. These personnel will never be able to recover
their careers because the Navy promotes and selects based on milestones attached to
entry dates.

Sailors subjected to menial labor beyond their duties, verbal and psychological abuse,
and severe mental health crises cannot be made whole by a notation in their personnel
files.

For class members who retired or departed the Naval Service subsequent to being
denied their constitutional rights, correcting their records provides no substantive benefit
and fails to address the harm incurred. Such individuals merit special consideration,
including monetary damages.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 300 Filed 07/16/24 Page 3of7 PagelD 8360

MONETARY DAMAGES

The settlement fails to compensate class members in any manner, despite many
enduring significant financial hardship, medical complications, and mental health issues
due to Defendants’ actions.

The original complaint is also insufficient and narrow in scope. Retrospective relief
should be included.

Under the Supreme Court's decision in Tanzin v. Tanvir, violations of the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act permit litigants to seek monetary damages against federal
officials. Given the physical, mental, and financial harm suffered by class members,
damages could reasonably exceed $4 billion*. Defendants should establish a fund
enabling class members to claim damages, yet the settlement does not address this,
nor does it provide any form of monetary compensation.

PRISONER OF WAR (POW) SIMILARITIES

In all cases, when a US Navy servicemember is captured and made a POW, the US
Navy retains the servicemember on active duty and continues all of their salaries, pays,
allowances, and bonuses to ensure neither the servicemember nor their families are
financially harmed by the unjust actions of those holding them captive. Additionally the
US Navy automatically promotes the POW service member at the next and each
subsequent statutory promotion board, without exception®. Similar remedy is warranted
since the US Navy’s actions are equal to, if not more egregious, since Plaintiffs were
under the protection of the Defendants who unjustly treated them as enemies.

POWs are often threated that they will never return home and be able to see or support
their families, they are intentionally isolated, forced to sign dubious documents,
humiliated, subjected to intense psychological stress, and also told that if they just
disobey their consciences and morals and speak out against their country and military,
that they will be released.

Plaintiffs were threatened with military judicial or administrative punishments which
would cost them and their families routine, normal, and expected health care, retirement
pay, and VA benefits offered to all servicemembers. Many Plaintiffs retired or left which
cost them promotions and additional benefits. Many Plaintiffs were forcibly separated
and lost all means of support for themselves and their families. Plaintiffs were isolated,
removed from normal work, and humiliated with menial labor not associated with their
job descriptions. Plaintiffs were forced to sign administrative admonishments (eg. Navy

4 The suggested damages represent 1.56% of the 2024 US Navy approved budget and 1.55% of the US Navy’s
requested 2025 budget . https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/25pres/DON_Budget_Card.pdf
accessed O2July2024

5 DoD 7000.14-R DoD Financial Management Regulation - Volume 7A: Military Pay Policy - Active Duty and Reserve
Pay
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 300 Filed 07/16/24 Page4of7 PagelD 8361

“Page 13”s) with dubious legal purpose intended to unjustly pressure them into violating
their consciences and the Constitution. Defendants were publicly removed from earned
positions and titles, humiliating them and their families. Defendants were regularly
provided “counseling” that was similar to intense psychological pressure to further
intensify the unjust requirement to violate their consciences and the Constitution.
Finally, Defendants attempted to entice Plaintiffs by offering to remove Defendant's
threats and unjust actions if only Defendants would violate their consciences and the
Constitution.

SIMILAR POW RELIEF

In the case of those Plaintiffs who actually left or retired after being denied their
Religious Accommodation, Defendants should provide a new official retirement date
inat coincides with the final date of U.S. Navy SEALs v. Biden, 4:22-cv-01236-O (N.D.
Tex.) case settlement. Additionally, those same Plaintiffs should be considered
promoted at their previous statutory promotion boards that occurred after their Religious
Accommodation Request denial and then provided the appropriate backpay (to include
total compensation: salaries, pays, allowances, and bonuses).

In the case of those who remained in active duty or reserve service of the Defendants

because they could not retire or because the Navy delayed their retirement paperwork,
they should receive the same benefits described in the immediate previous paragraph

as those who retired (automatic promotion at previous statutory promotion boards with
backpay) but remain on active duty at their new rank.

The Navy treated all members who requested a Religious Accommodation as though
they were enemies and treated them like prisoners of war. Plaintiffs were isolated,
threatened, and abused. What makes it worse is that these were the very people who
were assigned to protect Plaintiffs and swore an oath to protect the constitution.

REQUIRED US NAVY ACTION

Under the terms of the settlement, the Navy must prominently display a message on all
of its websites for one year affirming its support for individual religious freedom and
acknowledging that service in the Navy does not abrogate individuals' rights under the
First Amendment.

The Navy must create two training programs within 180 days that must be completed
annually and remain an annual training requirement for 20-years for all US Navy
employees. The first required training program will stressing the importance of
accommodating religious practices and acknowledging that the Navy illegally denied
religious accommodations during the COVID vaccine rollout and that the Navy regrets
its decision to violate individual religious freedom. The second required training program
will teach the supremacy of individual rights as guaranteed by the US Constitution, for
both citizens and US Navy personnel.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 300 Filed 07/16/24 Page5of7 PagelD 8362

Only through a sustained 20 years of education will the Navy be able to remove the rot
of disregard for liberty, law, and the Constitution.

CONCLUSION

| urge the Court to consider this objection in its entirety when deliberating on the
settlement and the imperative to continue this pivotal case for Jurisprudence concerning
the First Amendment.

Very Respecttully,
J M. Neunart II
Mail to:
JM Neuhart
3145 Little Haven Road
Virginia Beach VA 23452
eee nie GABE 4:21-Cv-01236-O Document 300 Filed 07/16/24 Page 6of7 PagelD 8363

3145 Little
Virginia Beach VA 23452

ATTN: U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden,
Case No. 4:21-cv-01236
Objections to Proposed Class Settlement

Clerk’s Office U.S. District Court for the N.
District of Texas Fort Worth Division

501 West 10th Street, Room 310

.Fort Worth, Texas
Extremely Urgent

MARY € LAND

OT OF VIRG

3419 VIRGINIA BEACH BLUD ©

VIRGINIA BEACH VA 23452

HIP TO:
CLERK’S OFFICE US DISTRICT COURT FO
DISTRICT OF TEXAS FO
501 W 10TH ST STE a0 WORTH DIVISI

FORT WORTH TX 76102-3641
Attn: WS. Nay
Case No. 4:2

Visit UPS.com
Apply shipping document

. Window Envelope

Use this envelope with shipping documents printe
or inkjet printer on plain paper.

Scan QR code to
schedule a pickup

TX 761 9-05

On:
correspondence, urgent documents, and/or electronic media, and ih ; rah joe: -
8 oz. or less. UPS Express envelopes containing items other than tH sereeere ee

SEALs 1-26 v, Biden

J

ie following service,
i \,

if

se this envelope for:

— Objechens to Propose Class Selmer

© To qualify for the letter rate, UPS Express® envelopes may only co

or weighing more than 80z. will be billed by weight. U PS N EXT D
international Shipments . AY Al R
¢ The UPS Express envelope may be used only for documents of na TRACKING #: 1Z W67 E08 01 9069 4562

value. Certain countries consider electronic media as documents.

1

ups.com/importexport to verify if your shipment is classified as a

© To qualify for the letter rate, the UPS Express envelope must weigh

UPS express envelopes weighing more than 8 oz. will be billed by:

Note: UPS Express envelopes are not recommended for shipment!
electronic media containing sensitive personal information or breal
Do not send cash or cash equivalent.

BILLING: P/P

i

| Trx Ref No.: PM PKG ID 147208

| Trx Ref No.: Fi

i

Serving you for more than 110 years
United Parcel Service.®

International Shipping Notice — Carriage hereunder may be subject w we SRST Sener i iortepeitg

by the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air (the “Warsaw C
the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (the “CMR C 1"). These diti
from the U.S. in accordance with the Export Administration Regulations. Diversion contrary to U.S. law prohibited.

1") and/or the C on
or software were exported

For it about UPS's privacy practices or to opt out from the sale of
personal information, please see the UPS Privacy Notice at www.ups.com
“910195103 5/21: PAC United Parce§Service


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.txnd.355696.300.0.pdf

Size

1,008,171 bytes

SHA-256

c7233fe846a7a2aba44f21c6b0020ff29eaece7ce3418022557d777dffa9840b

Our copy

gov.uscourts.txnd.355696.300.0.pdf

Original

No public link identified.