Browsed by
Category: Uncategorized

Status Report on the Covid Misinformation Situation for California Physicians and other interested parties (in western states)

Status Report on the Covid Misinformation Situation for California Physicians and other interested parties (in western states)

Comments 2 comments

There have been a lot of papers flying around the state in various court cases, so it seemed like a good idea to tell the vaccine-concerned physician and lay community where the law and cases stand. Soapbox Speech Before I get into the AB 2098 lawsuits, let me relate where we are on the pre-AB 2098 soap-box speech Covid misinformation investigations by the medical board which started in late 2021 and early 2022. So far as I can tell, there…

Read More Read More

MAJOR UPDATE AND BREAKING NEWS IN THE AB 2098 BATTLE

MAJOR UPDATE AND BREAKING NEWS IN THE AB 2098 BATTLE

Comments 0 Comment

As you know, our case, Hoang v. Bonta, together with the related case of Hoeg v. Newsom had some recent success before Judge Schubb, by his enjoining the enforcement of AB 2098 (now section 2270 of the Business and Professional Code). His decision was limited to the parties of the two cases, meaning the five docs in Hoeg, our lead plaintiff Le Trinh Hoang, but also included are all the members of our organizational Plaintiffs, Physicians for Informed Consent and…

Read More Read More

Join Them Now!

Join Them Now!

Comments 1 comment

(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…

Read More Read More

WE WON! AB 2098/B&P Section 2270 Has been stopped

WE WON! AB 2098/B&P Section 2270 Has been stopped

Comments 11 comments

(sent to me by a certain high-profile team member) Late Wednesday afternoon, Judge Schubb granted our motion (and the motion in the Hoeg v. Lawson case) for a preliminary injunction stopping the Attorney General and the Cali. medical boards from enforcing its Covid Misinformation bill. Here is the judge’s preliminary injunction order. injunctiongranted Our case is Hoang v. Bonta. As I expected, the expert declaration of Sanjay Verma was cited extensively by the judge as it demonstrated that there is…

Read More Read More

A little local color on how the hearing started

A little local color on how the hearing started

Comments 6 comments

The courtroom clerk (the long-serving and right-honorable Karen Kirksey-Smith calls the two cases, saying that the counsel for the first case (Hoeg v Lawson) should enter the counsel area first. They do, but yours truly was a little confused as to whether I was to go into the counsel’s area with or after them or wait until I was invited. (The same Deputy Attorney General was handling both cases, so she was already in the counsel table area. I didn’t…

Read More Read More

Hot off the Press on Cali. AB 2098: Federal Judge Denies Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the First Court Challenge; We’re up next in a few weeks

Hot off the Press on Cali. AB 2098: Federal Judge Denies Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the First Court Challenge; We’re up next in a few weeks

Comments 1 comment

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…

Read More Read More

Getting to Love AB 2098 (not)

Getting to Love AB 2098 (not)

Comments 4 comments

As feared but expected, Governor Newsom signed into law AB 2098. New laws go into effect January 1st of the following year, so unless I am missing something, or unless enjoined by a court, starting 1/1/2023 the California Business and Profession Code will have a new provision, Section 2270 which provides as follows: 2270. (a) It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the…

Read More Read More

The Mackenzie Covid Misinformation Lawsuit is Dismissed

The Mackenzie Covid Misinformation Lawsuit is Dismissed

Comments 3 comments

Yesterday afternoon, I appeared in Sacramento federal court for a hearing (i.e., listening to the judge’s decision and getting a limited opportunity to respond) on our motion for a preliminary injunction and the Board’s motion to dismiss the case. Per the title: the Board 1, Mackenzie/Jaffe 0. I thought I was right on the law and I thought I had the facts on our side, especially since 1. there has never been a court in the U.S. jurisprudence that has…

Read More Read More

Let’s Get it Rolling about the Abortion Issue, and you guessed it, Roe v Wade is GONE, GONE, GONE

Let’s Get it Rolling about the Abortion Issue, and you guessed it, Roe v Wade is GONE, GONE, GONE

Comments 13 comments

Let’s be clear about the fundamental issue involved in the upcoming and prior abortion cases. You could say that the issue is whether women have a fundamental and absolute right to control their own bodies. I don’t think that is the issue because that has already been decided and the answer is no, there is no absolute right for women to control what happens in their own bodies, and counterintuitively, that “no” answer came from Roe v. Wade . Specifically,…

Read More Read More

For Grins, here’s my prediction on the Supreme’s decision on Abortion

For Grins, here’s my prediction on the Supreme’s decision on Abortion

Comments 4 comments

Roe v. Wade is overturned by 5 justices of the Supreme Court. Roberts concurred with the result but wouldn’t go as far as the Five who overturned it. The justices who told the Senate with a straight face that Roe is a strong precedent and “settled law” that is entitled to stare decisis protection concurred and tried to distance themselves from Alito’s absolute language of Roe being wrongly decided from the get-go. The three liberal justices vehemently dissented, calling it…

Read More Read More