Judge Slaughter of the Central District of California has just released his 30-page decision denying the Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in McDonald v. Lawson.
Here is the opinion: McDonald PI Motion Denied

That means AB 2098 will become effective January 1, 2023, as Bus. & Prof. Code Section 2270 next week.

It is not clear what effect the law will have on actions or investigations by the medical and osteopathic boards because they take the position that they already had the power to discipline physicians for Covid misinformation and disinformation under Section 2234 (its general regulatory powers). But the new law might certainly create a disincentive for physicians to express concerns about the Covid shots and approved treatments once the new law takes effect. And the alleged clarity in the power of the Boards could well precipitate a more aggressive response to physicians providing negative information about the vaccines and standard of care treatments.

But there are three more challenges to the law that will be heard later in January, including our cases Hoang v. Bonta, which together with Hoeg v. Lawson, will be heard Monday, January 23, 2023, in Sacramento Federal Court. (The Hoeg case will go first since it was filed before our case, and at the Plaintiffs’ counsel’s request). The fourth case will be heard in the Southern District on the 26th.

In some important respects, our case is much different from the other three cases. It alone contains a direct attack on the mainstream Covid narrative via the very excellent declaration of Sanjay Verma, MD which challenges all of the major points of the narrative, including the legislative finding in the statute that the unvaccinated are eleven times more likely to die of Covid.
I think this might turn out to be a critical point in the case. I think Sanjay’s declaration is the clarion call for those who question the mainstream Covid narrative. Here is his declaration. You will love, love it. sanjaydeclaration

FYI: Sanjay will be speaking at length on CHD’s monthly legal update hosted by CHD’s President Mary Holland, tomorrow. I’m also on the show as are PIC’s Greg Glaser Esq. and CHD’s Director of Litigation, Ray Flores, Esq (both of whom have their hands on the paperwork in our case). Here is the link to the CHD TV channel. It should be sometime tomorrow. https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows
Also, we had a very, very detailed analysis of the most relevant cases, almost of biography of the case law, something which is lacking in the other cases. I think that the lack of a very close analysis led Judge Slaughert to misstate the law in a way that would have been hard to do if a more detailed and analytical presentation was given to him. (or maybe it wouldn’t have mattered because it’s California, Judge Slaughter is a recent Biden appointee and Democrats tend to be more accepting of government restrictions than Republican judges). But we’ll know soon enough.

Practically speaking, there might be some chilling effect of the new law for a month or so. However, board cases take a long time, usually well more than a year. Sometimes more than two years. So if our case or one of the other two remaining cases prevails, that should protect physicians from investigations for communications they make in January.
If we go forward on the 23rd, expect a decision within two weeks thereafter. We have something else going for us, but I’ll get into that another time.

That’s all she wrote, (for now).

Rick Jaffe, Esq.