Shocker! SB 277 Preliminary Injunction Motion Denied

Shocker! SB 277 Preliminary Injunction Motion Denied

In an 18 page decision, Judge Sabraw denied the vaccine concerned plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Big surprise! He also set out the grounds why he will dismiss the case, after the defendants file their motion to dismiss, which I would guess would be in the next week or two.

Unfortunately, the law has been clear for a hundred years, up to an including last year’s New York case. States are not required to have a personal belief exemption or a religious exemption to vaccines because the rights of the few are subservient to the the health of the many. That’s just established law. Until the vaccine concerned present a case to a court that 1. herd immunity is wrong and 2. vaccination damage to kids is horrible, understated or underreported and that the programs are massively unsafe and do not prevent disease, no judge is going to overturn a state’s decision to remove PBE’s or religious exemptions.  The injunction motion did not have any real record or evidence to support such a finding, so it was doomed or dead on arrival

Maybe the vaccine concerned will never accept the decision, the appeal decision or the law, but it doesn’t matter. This lawsuit is going to be dismissed, before the end of the year, the appeal will be denied, just like in Phillips v. New York (which is pretty similiar to this case and suffers from the same legal and record defects) and the  Supreme Court will not grant certiorari, just like in Phillips.

Deal with it,  and maybe it’s time for a Plan B.

Here is the Judge’s decision. He’s right on the money, based on the law, and the record before him.



Rick jaffe


7 thoughts on “Shocker! SB 277 Preliminary Injunction Motion Denied

      1. Who was the client who signed the paperwork with all the lawyers? Who orchestrated this? Kristen Hundley of OKOC said it was not her. However, why are they keeping the client a secret?

        1. If you’re referring to the federal SB 277 lawsuit, the plaintiffs are listed in the caption. They are mostly individuals, parents of kids, and a few organizations. Typically the main lawyer signs the paperwork (complaint and motion papers). Some of the plaintiffs signed declarations which were submitted as part of the preliminary injunction motion. This is all from the record in the case. I am not involved in the case.

          1. I’m sorry – I should be more clear. Someone has to sign paperwork with the lawyers saying it will cost XYZ for you to litigate against SB277. The lawyers would not take on a case without this. Not to mention we don’t know WHO put the ball in motion of calling these lawyers and putting all the puzzle pieces together. Is it big pharma? We will never know. Why? They won’t tell us WHO signed the financial paperwork before finding the plaintiffs. You also might find it interesting that at first they wanted $500,000 but apparently now they are running with the $50,000 they have in donations. Did they fail because not enough money was raised?

  1. What are your thoughts on revisiting this? Seems Childrens Heath Defense and Physicians for informed consent have more than enough data to overturn this? The fact that most of these are made with fetal tissue would warrant a religious exception.

Leave a Reply