Preliminary Injunction Motion filed in our AB 2098 Challenge
Yesterday afternoon, we filed the initial papers for a preliminary injunction in our lawsuit challenging Cali. AB 2098, the misinformed Covid misinformation bill which is set to take effect on January 1st. The hearing is set for January 17th before District Judge Dale A. Drozd, who currently doing law and motion hearings (like out motion) by Zoom. But the date and judge are a bit up in the air because our case is “related” to the Hoeg v. Newsom case presently pending before another district judge in the same Eastern District of California. So, it is possible that both cases could be heard by the same judge. We should know more about that in a week.
As stated in a prior post, I think the huge thing we’re bringing to the table of the AB2098 legal debate is that we have an expert declaration who has put together a detailed and exhaustive chronology of how the public health Covid narrative has evolved and changed inconsistently, and that much of it was based more on wishful-thinking than real science. Therefore, the idea that there is a “contemporary scientific consensus” that is actually based on science is itself wishful thinking and a legal (and scientific) fiction.
One specific thing that bothered me because it was specifically referenced in AB 2098’s legislative findings was the purported fact that the unvaccinated are 11 times more likely to die than the vaccinated. This fact was specifically referenced in Judge Slaughter’s decision dismissing the McDonald v. Lawson case, which was the first AB 2098 challenge. Since that fact seemed so impressive to Judge Slaughter, I figured we needed to pull back the curtain, and so we did via our expert Dr. Sanjay Verma’s declaration. Without further ado, here is the rather brilliant declaration of Sanjay Verma, M.D.sanjaydeclaration I think he has knocked it out of the park. Thanks, Sanjay!
We did something else unusual, or at least not previously done in this kind of case: We are submitting declarations from two patients to show how AB 2098 is already adversely effecting the doctor-patient relationship because of the fear that physicians will decide to parrot the current mainstream Covid narrative. We also have a declaration from a Kaiser nurse who had a heart attack after taking the J&J vaccine, in which she related her encounter with what I would call institutional vaccine injury denialism, and how that denialism causes collateral problems. Im. In her case, physicians initially refused to attribute her heart attack to the vaccine. But even after they did, California still refused her workers’ compensation claim based on Covid misinformation that the work required vaccine was responsible for her injury. I think it may be important to show the judge some of the consequences of the public health authorities’ failure of transparency on vaccine injury, and maybe this will be the case to do it.
In contrast to the dismissed McDonald case, we had declarations (and statements in the complaint) explaining some of the specific information physicians wanted to convey to patients which would or could be classified as “Covid misinformation” from two physicians (Plaintiff Hoang, and PIC President Miller).
I think these allegations are going to solve the lack of standing problem which led to the dismissal of McDonald. I think the mistake those folks made was that they were litigating the original version of AB 2098, which was targeted at the public speech of physicians. But as you all know, even though that was the essence of the bill, discipline for public speech was removed from the bill early on in the Legislative process.
That meant that the challenges to the passed bill had to be all about what specifically the physician intended to say to his/her patients, not what they previously said in public. The lawyers in Hoeg did a better job, but we’ll see if it is enough.
The bottom line is that our case is focused on what doctors want to tell their patients, down to the nitty-gritty of the science which is ignored by the mainstream Covid narrative. If we are right about this approach, the State is going to have to give a much more substantive response to our papers than what it presented in McDonald. (The Attorney General’s response in Hoeg is not due until Monday.)
There was a legal problem that I thought had to be addressed, and that is the apparent murkiness in the First Amendment free speech jurisprudence, especially in this Ninth Circuit. So I did something I’ve never done before in a brief (memorandum of law), I told a chronological, almost biographical story of the relevant case law, hopefully in a clear and straightforward fashion, explaining what the law is now via how it got there with a couple twists and bumps in the road. Take a look at it and see if you agree (pages 9-20 in the memo).
Anyway, that’s what we filed. You be the judge.
If the papers are anything up to pretty good, I’ll take the credit.
If they are great, that would be because of FG&J (Flores (CHD Director of Litigation), Glaser (PIC General Counsel) and Jaffe (guerrilla warrior aka Galileo’s Lawyer), and for most of the declarations, that would be the G part, so thx G.)
Rick Jaffe, Esq.