Well — that’s as expected.

These Tangerine 2.0 clowns can’t understand fifth grade civics. Here’s CNN’s story — just breaking:

…US District Judge William Alsup ordered the Office of Personnel Management to inform certain federal agencies that it had no authority to order the firings of probationary employees, including the Department of Defense.

“OPM does not have any authority whatsoever, under any statute in the history of the universe,” to hire or fire any employees but its own, he said….

There are an estimated 200,000 probationary workers — generally employees who have less than a year on the job — across federal agencies. About 15,000 are employed in California, providing services ranging from fire prevention to veterans’ care, the complaint says….

Alsup, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, has presided over many high-profile cases and is known for his blunt talk. He oversaw the criminal probation of Pacific Gas & Electric and has called the nation’s largest utility a “continuing menace to California….”

[And the summary text order — no opinion yet:]

…Motion for TRO held on 2/27/2025. Parties stated appearances and proffered argument. Court ruled as stated on the record. Written Memorandum Opinion to issue. [Musk/Tangerine 2.0] Government is to produce expedited discovery on 3/4/2025 by 12:00pm noon (pst). Evidentiary Hearing set for 3/13/2025 08:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 12, 19th Floor before Judge William Alsup….

Way to go, Willinator! And do put that in your pipe, and smoke it, Elon — And Tangerine 2.0! See you next week — for the permanent injunction, and perhaps — damages.

नमस्ते

In prep for the hearing is this afternoon, Pacific time — we will show you by link — the as expected — overnight unions’ (and others’) forceful answers to the lies, from Team Tangerine 2.0.

As I said yesterday, most of the actual emails that appear as exhibits to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint, and this filing last night — directly contradict unsupported Musky statements (i.e., lies), told by OPM / Musk minions:

…Plaintiffs have presented the Court with substantial evidence, including OPM’s own documents and agency admissions and documents from across the government, that OPM ordered federal agencies across the government to terminate probationary workers with few exceptions and to use a standard notice falsely claiming performance justification. In response, OPM submits a single declaration from Acting OPM Director Ezell, created for purposes of this litigation, that denies ordering terminations, contradicts his own attachments, is unsupported by any testimony from the agencies that supposedly made these decisions, and is simply not credible.

Because Plaintiffs are correct that OPM ordered these terminations and use of a termination notice OPM knew was a lie, this Court has more than enough evidence to issue a TRO maintaining the status quo. OPM’s actions broke the law. OPM largely focuses on jurisdictional roadblocks, but each point fails. Plaintiffs and their members have documented their ongoing, irreparable harm across the country. Plaintiffs’ claims against OPM are not the type of claims channeled to administrative agencies. And OPM is flat wrong that this Court lacks authority to enter an injunction that stops OPM’s unlawful acts in their entirety and orders OPM and all those acting in concert to maintain the status quo. Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court enter their proposed TRO and stop the unlawful action that is harming our government and our country….

I may only have time today to post links to documents, as they get filed — and not really comment on them in any detailed context. It is going to be a busy day in the nation’s court-houses — so do buckle up! Onward.

नमस्ते

Well, I said it would be foolish/stupid for Elon’s OPM minions to lie here — but prevaricate, it seems they have. Geez.

See pages 15 and 16, here. I’ll quote it below — but the answer… is directly contradicted by the time-stamps on emails, and the originating / sending [OPM] party line — on dozens of which I am aware. Contradicted, on the basis of exhibits already on the record, in the litigation. Several of those are on file as exhibits to the amended complaint by the plaintiffs, as well. Damn. Take a look:

…OPM did not direct agencies to terminate probationary employees, based either on performance or misconduct. See Ezell Decl. ¶ 10. Rather, OPM reminded agencies of the importance of the probationary period in evaluating applicants’ continued employment and directed agencies to identify all employees on probationary periods and promptly determine whether those employees should be retained at the agency. See id. Agencies were responsible for reviewing probationers’ performance, and agencies were responsible for deciding which probationary employees to keep and to terminate. See id. Agencies were responsible for taking action to terminate their own employees they no longer wished to retain, and agencies were responsible for taking that action in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations….

[Editorial Nota Bene: In the case I am most familiar with, this statement above is at best… wildly misleading (and the plaintiffs’ affidavits contradict it — many of them with proving exhibits — they aver that their “termination notice” came ONLY from OPM, and only copied the agency head — no one else). In the case of the probationary employee I am closely familiar with, the employee in question was to attend a pre-scheduled meeting with his direct supervisors by Zoom, to work out the next six months, both on budgets, and on transitional work plans and tasks. But a full-hour before that meeting, he received an OPM email (one that did not even copy anyone in his direct chain of command), saying he was being “terminated for cause — poor performance“. Two weeks earlier, he had received an “exceeds expectations” review, and a raise to a higher G- pay class. So the above is a lie, in at least several cases — and perhaps, as to tens of thousands of these employees.]

Back now to OPM’s answers:

…Probationers are applicants for employment with the burden to demonstrate their fitness for continued employment; there is no presumption that they will be retained. See Ezell Decl. ¶ 11. Agencies are obligated to use the probationary period to determine the fitness of probationary employees and must terminate employees’ services if they fail to demonstrate fully their qualifications for continued employment. See id. This determination must take into account the existing needs and interests of government. See id. The probationary period is part of the hiring process; agencies are not required to hire every employee whose performance is “satisfactory.” Id. An agency [Nota Bene — not OPM, but the actual agency that employed the person] may determine, and OPM has determined, that only the highest-performing probationers in mission-critical areas demonstrate the necessary fitness or qualifications for continued employment. . . .

Again, that second answer to Judge Alsup’s pointed question… is largely… non-responsive — and argumentative. As such, the able USDC Senior Judge Alsup is likely to deem OPM “admitted” — to the charge that these probationaries were fired NOT with any performance metric in mind — at all.

Consider that my son was rated “exceeds expectations” by his own superiors. And they were utterly unaware he had been let go, by OPM, when he opened the Zoom meeting and informed them of the OPM email. [This all transpired in the Eugene, Oregon federal offices.]

Onward, tomorrow’s hearing… it will be a banger — in San Francisco.

नमस्ते