(Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Esq. for those of you who are reading this from beyond our solar system.)
(PIC’s fearless President, Shira Miller MD outside the Courtroon after the AB 2098 hearing. Editor’s note: She seems pleased and confident, and as turns out, for good reason. Thx Shira for backing this.)
(The rest of the legal team and Dr. Verma whose 40-page declaration demonstrated that the “contemporary scientific consensus” was meaningless in this pandemic. Sanjay’s declaration was cited 9 times by Judge Shubb in his decision which held that AB 2098 was unconstitutionally vague because the contemporary scientific consensus was meaningless. Great job Sanjay! And let us not forget the declarations and reply declarations from the 5 brave docs in the Hoeg case. One of whom, Tracy Hoeg, MD, Ph.D. is an epidemiologist and has published Covid epidemiology analyses. Another of the Hoeg plaintiffs is Azadeh, Khatibi, MD, an Ophthalmologist, former actress, and documentarian working on the movie version of this case.)
As most of you know by now, on Wednesday, January 25th, senior federal district court Judge William B. Shubb granted a preliminary injunction barring the enforcement of AB 2098 pending his decision after trial (or summary judgment) on the merits of the case. That’s very, very good news. Our case, Hoang et al v. Bonta et al was one of two “related” cases he decided and heard together. (Perhaps by happy coincidence there were three podiums/lecterns in the judge’s courtroom and Hoeg’s lead counsel, First Amendment, and vaccine mandate attorney Jenin Younes and I were up there arguing our largely overlapping cases before the judge. (Kind of like tag team wrestling, and it worked out.)
And of course, although not speaking, Jenin had the great benefit of Laura Powell, Esq. as her local counsel (as well as one of those overachieving lawyer/medical doctor types in the form and presence of Greg Dolin Esq/MD, and he’s one sharp fellow.) Many of you wouldn’t recognize Laura’s face, but anyone who followed AB 2098 through the legislative process and saw the hearings would recognize the back of her head since she was the vaccine community’s legal advocate opposing the bill in most of the public hearings. And she did an excellent job given the 90 seconds she had to distill the complicated First Amendment issues into mini bites of information that could be understood by the mostly democratic, fearful, and mostly unthinking members of the legislative committees. But I digress.
The main point of the post is to talk about the scope and effect of the judge’s preliminary injunction order, and there is one big caveat/correctable hiccup as it were:
HIS DECISION ONLY APPLIES TO THE PARTIES IN THE TWO CASES.
Here is the end of the opinion (page 29)
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction (Hoeg Docket No. 5, Hoang Docket No. 4) be, and the same hereby are GRANTED. Pending final resolution of this action, defendants, their agents and employees, all persons or entities in privity with them, and anyone acting in concert with them are hereby ENJOINED from enforcing Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 2270 as against plaintiffs. plaintiffs members, and all persons represented by plaintiffs.”
So the good news is that Judge Shubb granted the injunction. The bad news is that it only applies to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit and the people they “represent”.
But the good news is that two of the three plaintiffs in our case (Hoang) are organizational plaintiffs which represent many thousands of physicians and families who want to provide or hear from their physicians information beyond the Covid Mafia’s advice that everyone 5 months or older take every vaccine and booster the pharmacy companies keep pumping out, and only take the new drugs specially approved by the FDA for Covid. And certainly don’t take any of the generic (i.e., cheap) off-label drugs like Ivermectin, despite the fact that hundreds of physicians think it and other drugs alone or with supplement cocktails have good empirical evidence of efficacy as reflected in many dozens of peer-reviewed publication supporting their use. (And, yes, I have a point of view.)
Based on the judge’s ruling, I have received some inquiries from California physicians who want to bring their own lawsuits to get the same immunity from medical board prosecutions as the plaintiffs in the two cases.
Yes, that is a possibility, albeit an expensive one.
if you are a California physician who wants to be protected from AB 2098/now section 2270 investigations and prosecutions, you could just JOIN PIC and CHD Cal. Chapter. And Because CHD national provided most of the seed money for this initial stage of the litigation, join CHD as well (it’s a separate organization from the CHD California chapter, and so help Bobby’s national group continue to support this lawsuit.)
here are the links to their join and donate pages:
PIC info and donate https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/
Info on CHD’s California Chapter
A final word
We had a great victory in court last week, but it was only the opening battle. There will be more litigation. I think we will probably get to the Supremes by the summer. There might be some bumps in the road, but I think we will get to the promised land in this challenge to the government’s medical authoritarianism.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the Covid Mafia has oversold the benefits of the vaccines and boosters, which do not prevent infection or transmission, which means that the rationale for vaccine mandates was an aspirational medical fiction that did not prove out.
As more and more young and healthy people continue to be hospitalized and die from SADSUCV” (Sudden Adult Death Syndrome, but surely unrelated to Covid Vaccination, (see our patient declaration about that and about the epidemic in the US of vaccine injury denialism), the Covid Mafia’s attempt to control the Covid narrative is failing. And that is the reason why so few people are getting the fourth or fifth booster. The public just does not buy what the government is selling. Judge Shubb’s decision is an important step in ensuring that physicians can continue to speak their minds to their patients. We are on the right side of history on this, methinks.
Rick Jaffe, Esq.
(Co-Founding Member of ACMICMP (don’t ask me how to pronounce it, but it is the ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON IMMUNIZATION AGAINST COVID MISINFORMATION PROSECUTIONS, (not to be confused with THE CDC’s ACIP (Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices).