Browsed by
Category: Uncategorized

Cancer Doc Stanislaw Burzynski explains his theory of cancer and his targeted gene therapy approach (and my worlds collide)

Cancer Doc Stanislaw Burzynski explains his theory of cancer and his targeted gene therapy approach (and my worlds collide)

For those of you who don’t know about him, Stanislaw Burzynski has been treating advanced cancer patients since the late 1970s with a novel peptide compound he discovered (and later synthesized). In the last dozen or so years he has been on the cutting edge of multi-agent targeted gene therapy in what is called personalized cancer treatment. Along the way, he has run into a quantum level more trouble with governments and other institutions than any other maverick health care practitioner in the world. Stan and his patients who demanded access to his non-FDA approved treatment originated the right to try/expanded access to investigational treatments back in the mid-90s, first with expanded compassionate use under the Clinton Administration, ultimately leading to the right to try movement which is now federal law and the law of most states. (Full disclosure for those of you who don’t know, I was involved in many of these battles for a few decades, as detailed in Chapter 2 of Galileo’s Lawyer.)

Forty five years later, he’s still treating advanced cancer patients and still looking for funding to do the phase 3 clinical trials (for DIPG a very nasty and fatal childhood cancer).

Documentarian Eric Merola has done a series of movies and interviews with Stan starting ten years ago. The first one won some awards but was hated by the mainstream cancer establishment.

Recently, Eric has put together a series of interviews with Stan. Here is a link to Stan’s explanation of his theory of cancer been a genetic disease and how it should be treated and why it’s so tough to treat.

https://youtu.be/QFwKbMirchM.

In this Covid crazy world we live in, we should remember that there are other important issues and battles to be fought.

Stan’s wife, Barbara, who co-founded the Burzynski enterprise (a clinic and a drug manufacturing facility) died a few weeks ago of Covid. She was 80 and unvaccinated. The disease attacked her lungs and she passed within two weeks. Stan went through some very tough times fighting the federal and state governments. Barbara was his most vociferous supporter and kept him on track with grace and inner strength.

I am a long-time health freedom advocate who is active in the vaccine mandate field. But I’d be lying if I said it hasn’t given me pause to think, especially as we now pass the 700k death number (for those who accept this or any statistics from the government). Health freedom has a cost.

There are a number of YouTube interviews in Eric’s series about Dr. Burzynski. You will find them interesting and aligned with how you think about things. Stan is a unique voice in the cancer field, and someone who will be viewed by history as a pivotal part of the health freedom movement. So check them out.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

More Good News on the Religious Exemption Front! NY Federal Judge Issues a TRO Against the Denial of Religious Exemptions; Now it’s getting interesting and Maybe it’s an end-around Jacobson in this and other such actions

More Good News on the Religious Exemption Front! NY Federal Judge Issues a TRO Against the Denial of Religious Exemptions; Now it’s getting interesting and Maybe it’s an end-around Jacobson in this and other such actions

At 10:00 AM this morning, a Northern District of NY federal judge signed a TRO stopping the new Governor and the Department of Health from a bunch of things relating to religious exemptions being denied to state health care workers.

Here is the order.

order

Here is the complaint. It is interesting because it’s not only about the religious exemption but also about natural immunity. Thomas More Society NY FED Hospital Pleading!!!

This might be a good template for other such actions for many reasons, not the least of which is that it seems to circumvent Jacobson, which is limited to upholding the constitutionality of state vaccine mandates under the state’s police power.

This is a different issue. There is a federal statute that accords certain religious accommodations/exemptions to employer mandates, the contours and processes are murky and undefined. Cases like this one invoke the constitutional buzzword “religion” and there is the aforementioned federal statutory basis that gets the attention and serious consideration of the Courts. Not enough attention on a straight state mandate because of Jacobson . But based on a right to practice religion under federal law, well that is apparently a whole different issue. Now, two federal courts have temporarily stopped states from interfering with the religious rights of workers.

This case is going to proceed quickly. Per the order, the judge wants to convert the TRO into a preliminary injunction unless the state objects (and it will I think) and proceed to a permanent injunction hearing. The other thing of note is that the state’s new order and the denials do not go into effect until later this month, so the judge pointed out that despite the TRO it has no practical effect for the next few weeks, which gives the state plenty of time to react. But Leticia and her crew will be mightly busy until then.

Between, this and the whole Biden OSHA thing, for which Jacobson is also not direct precedent, well, like I said, it’s going to get interesting and those opposing the mandates may continue to get some good news.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

The Texas Abortion Law Mess

The Texas Abortion Law Mess

The right-wing wingnuts running Texas have finally figured out how to practically nullify Roe v. Wade. Many fear that other states will follow the Texas legal template of insulating the Texas government’s actions by deputizing the nationwide anti-abortion activists to enforce the new restrictions.

It’s a good tactic, what I would call the swarm. If a majority of the members of the Supreme Court were institutionalists, rather than agenda-driven political hacks in black robes, the Supremes would have stopped it last week. They will have another opportunity in a few weeks, but I think the vote will be the same (or so I fear).

The New DOJ Lawsuit

Yesterday, the Feds filed a lawsuit challenging the law in the Western District of Texas. Most of the district judges in that district are smart and fair. Based on past cases, the district court might well enjoin the abortion law, (despite some possible standing issues). I can’t say the same for the Fifth Circuit, not on the abortion issue anyway.

I going with the preliminary injunction will be overturned by the Fifth Circuit eventually, and in the short term, the Fifth will probably stay the injunction. The Supremes will probably do what it did last week (unless despite her religious beliefs Amy Barrett reveals herself to be a closet institutionalist).

This case is going to up the ante on the Mississippi abortion case which will be decided the next term (starting in early October). The challenges to the Texas law become moot if the Supremes overturn Roe. A few of the five conservative justices have already gone on record saying that the decision was wrongly decided. At their confirmation hearings, the three recent Trump appointees made the right noises that they haven’t decided the issue, never ever thought about it, (or that they never heard of the Roe decision but swore that they liked fish eggs).

The Fed’s filing this lawsuit is surely welcome news to the pro-choice community (which is a large majority of the people in the US). And there might well be some good news in the short term from the district judge in the form of an initial preliminary injunction.

However, I don’t think the good news will stick, because at this point in time, both the Fifth Circuit and 5 Supreme Court members either are morally opposed to abortion or because of their original intent/textual view of the Constitution, they believe the founders did not actually create (or intended to create) Constitutional protection to women who want abortions.

(Under this obtuse view of the Constitution, the document is frozen in time. Thus, the rights given to Americans for however long the republic lasts, were only those rights explicitly thought about by a bunch of mostly old white guys, many of whom were farmers and slave owners. And yes, it’s really that moronic! And let’s remember, these were the folks that came up with the moral abomination but practical necessity of counting slaves as 3/5th’s of a person for census congressional representations or whatever the hell it was for. And did I mention that George Washington was bled to death by the best available standard of care medicine, (but perhaps I digress because of some of my other current cases).

So, I think we’re in for a roller coaster ride. The District Court will grant an injunction in the federal action, but I think that will be stayed by the Fifth Circuit, maybe immediately or after some limited briefing schedule. Then the abortion providers will be back facing the private bounty hunters. (except for recent state court injunction against the main anti-abortion group, and possibly others, for as long as that injunction is in place). Like I said, It’s a mess.

What about Congressional action?
Theoretically possible, but unlikely to the point that it’s not happening. There won’t be 10 or even 5 senators who will vote for the bill. It’s DOA at the Senate, except it will linger because the Dems nominally control the Senate. If you call control not being able to pass any legislation not related or stuffed into an appropriations bill, due to the filibuster rules.

Private Texas Attorneys to the rescue?

I have heard about efforts to solicit Texas lawyers to defend the anticipated lawsuits against abortion providers filed by the nationwide cadre of private bounty hunters. That’s certainly a good idea, but I don’t think it will make the abortion providers feel much safer. I think the pro-choicers need to get more aggressive, legally and otherwise.

Legally and lawsuit wise, you’ve got a lot of lemons, so make lemonade.

You’ve going to have a bunch of random anti-abortionists around the country complaining and seeking bounty against abortion providers. Well, another way to describe these bounty hunters is “co-conspirators.” A conspiracy is just a plan involving two to more people to achieve an illegal objective. Proof of a conspiracy requires proving a plan and an overt act. The overt act does not have to be an illegal act. It just has to be an act in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy.

Right now, there is a constitutionally protected right to abortion, and denial of a federal right is illegal and actionable, (and that is a basis of the federal lawsuit). So if and when these bounty hunters show up, seems to me they could be sued. The beauty part of conspiracy is that the plan doesn’t have to work or be formally implemented. It’s just proof of a plan and an overt act (and that the defendant agreed to participate, which can be by direct or circumstantial evidence).

What about the fact that Texas law allows and in fact authorizes what they are doing? Doesn’t matter. If people violate federal law in executing a state law, they are still liable.

Back in the 90’s I filed a lawsuit against New Jersey state insurance fraud investigations who I claimed were extorting money out of chiropractors and physicians whom the fraud department suspected of insurance fraud. The state statute specifically allowed the fraud department to offer civil settlements and so they claimed in their defense that was what they were doing. Although the judges on the case were skeptical of my case initially, they eventually got it, let the case proceed and right before trial the state gave up, settled, and while not admitting they did anything wrong, they agreed to stop doing it. The fraud department was then reconstituted. (The case is described in Chapter 6 of Galileo’s Lawyer. https://www.amazon.com/Galileos-Lawyer-Alternative-Complementary-Experimental/dp/0980118301//.)

The legal point/precedent is that it is possible to illegally execute or act under state law if what you are doing is a violation of federal law. I even had a RICO claim against these state fraud investigators, and I’m sure some clever pro-choice lawyers can figure out how to get these bounty hunters on RICO as well.

Well, what about the fact that they’re from all over the country?

Even better I say. Lemonade from lemons, or taking the fight to their home jurisdiction. Federal or state court? Both, but primarily state, if for no other reason, to try to keep these cases from the US Supreme Court based on the above. I hope I am wrong about the Supremes. In a few months, we will know the answer.

My bottom line is that I think the pro-choicers have to up their game to meet these new challenges, including the fact that the Supremes (or five of them) are likely to abandon their institutional obligations to the court and country.

As I look over the entire battlefield, what I see is that the Country is on the pro-choice side and I think pro-choice has greater, if largely as yet untapped resources. Those untapped resources were not necessary because until now, Roe, while knocked up a bit, has survived.

But now, it’s obviously different. So I would hope and guess that with proper nationwide organization, there will be an order of magnitude increase in the support (and no doubt, so the pro-choice organizations hope) to take this fight to the next level.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

Still No Word on Ken Stoller’s Appeal/Writ of Administrative Mandate

Still No Word on Ken Stoller’s Appeal/Writ of Administrative Mandate

I have been receiving requests for the status of Ken Stoller’s appeal (writ) in his licensing case. Nothing to report as of the close of business Monday, August 30, 2021.

It has been five weeks since the hearing, but this is a complicated case with competing interests. These writ cases which review medical board decisions often take a month or two to be decided.

And it is the summer, and even (or especially) judges and their staff deserve a summer break.

Of course, with the imminent start of the new school year, I am sure that many families who received medical exemptions from him are sitting on pins and needles waiting for this decision.

But again, when I know, you’ll know.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

Status of the UC COVID Vaccine Mandate Cases

Status of the UC COVID Vaccine Mandate Cases

There might be some misinformation circulating about the status of the injunction actions against the UC COVID vaccine mandates. I am not involved in either of the two cases against the UC of which I am aware, but for what it’s worth, here is what I know and what I think.

1. The Frontline Doctors lawsuit: There is no injunction against the UC in this case. Per previous posts, the motion for preliminary injunction was denied. That denial was affirmed by the 9th Circuit court of appeals. Greg Glaser has filed the paperwork with the Supremes, (liberal justice Kagan is the justice overseeing filings from the 9th Circuit). My view is that if conservative justice Amy Comey Barrett wouldn’t accept Indiana University’s emergency filings challenging IU’s Covid vaccine mandate, for sure, (a fortiori for the legally inclined) Justice Kagan will not. As most of you know, typically, liberal and democratic judges are much more deferential to government public health regulation than republicans and conservatives or libertarian-leaning judges. That explains why the Supreme Court affirmed the California restrictions on religious gatherings starting in the summer of 2020 in the South Pentecostal cases, but reversed itself (in effect) after Justice Barrett replaced the late Justice Ginsburg in the Cuomo case.

2. A second injunction action against the UC Covid mandate has recently been filed in the same federal district (but a different division), by the highly regarded vaccine rights attorney Aaron Siri and his firm. It is essentially the same lawsuit as the Frontline Doctor’s lawsuit, meaning that the plaintiff (only one in this case) argues that since he already had Covid, there is no evidence that he needs the vaccine and hence the mandate is illegal/unconstitutional as applied to him.

But this argument was already rejected by the 9th Circuit in the Frontline Doctor’s case, and because of that, I think the district court in this case, is bound by direct precedent to deny the preliminary injunction for failure to show a likelihood on the merits. (There is a new equal protection claim, but I think that’s a clear loser. Having had Covid is not a protected class. And, every court has held that vaccine preferences is not a fundamental right (and don’t shoot the messenger; it is what the courts have either specifically or tacitly held).

The preliminary injunction motion is scheduled to be heard at the end of September. As is everything coming from Aaron and his office, the papers are extremely professional, clear, and very cogent. You will certainly enjoy reading them, so here they are:

Siri UC Injunction

Siri UC Case Complaint

Siri UC McCollough Dec.(1)

Siri UC Faculty Declaration

Like I have said in prior posts regarding the Frontline Doctor and the Indiana University cases, Jacobson and Zucht and the subsequent federal and state cases require district and appellate courts to deny legal attempts to enjoin vaccine mandates, despite the attempts by attorneys to distinguish these precedents.

I think the primary purpose of these cases is to get to the Supremes as quickly as possible in what is referred to as shadow supreme court oversight, meaning obtaining Supreme Court review in an emergency setting before the case is fully litigated. That happened in the religious services cases in California and New York, but did not happen in the Indiana U vaccine mandate case, and I don’t think that will happen in either of these two cases against the UC. But we shall see.

I have checked the docket in this case and there is no TRO request listed as having been granted or even having been made. Rather, as stated, there is a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for late September.

So, whatever unsubstantiated rumors are circulating about there having been a TRO issued against the UC Covid mandate is just that, and so far as I can tell from the docket and the paperwork, it is not true. Further, due to the limited nature of the relief requested for the sole plaintiff in the case, even if a preliminary injunction were to be granted, it would only apply at most to members of the UC community who already had Covid. But for the above reasons, my view is that is not going to happen because of Jacobson and more specifically the recent 9th Circuit precedent on the same basic facts and same legal issue in the Front Line Doctor’s case. I’m sorry to be a Debbie Downer again (and again and again).

People have to make decisions, like now. Some of those people might appreciate the facts (that there is no TRO against the UC mandate) and a realistic assessment (in my view anyway) of the arguments and likely result of the pending cases.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

It’s Time to Start Thinking about What’s Next in the COVID Mandate Challenges

It’s Time to Start Thinking about What’s Next in the COVID Mandate Challenges

The first round in the legal challenges to the state universities’ mandate for the COVID vaccine (including a religious accommodation) are all but over, or at least they will be if and when the Indiana University students emergency motion to the Supreme Court does not get a hearing. There should be an answer in a few days. If the Supremes accept the case and order briefing, well then this round isn’t over. I have noted my scepticism, but we’ll see soon enough.

Assuming the Supremes don’t take up the issue now, the question is what (if anything) is next?

If I were a legal general thinking about the next issues that need to be addressed, the first thing I’d think about is the changing landscape, and by that I mean focusing on what the public health situation looks like right now, and that would be according to the public health officials. I focus on that, rather than what any of you reading this might think is the situation or any of the outlier experts think because judges reviewing legal challenges only take seriously mainstream opinions by experts recognized by the public health establishment. That’s not something any of you (including the prominent vaccine lawyers and advocates) want to hear, but I think that it a fair analysis of what the judges have said and done recently. And of course, it is completely consistent with and specifically stated by the Jacobson opinion (per my recent post which I quoted the “common view” language from the opinion).

So what do the public health officials know right now? (And it’s obviously a moving target since it seems that things are changing very quickly)

Obviously, the Delta virus has a much higher degree of transmissibility than previous versions of the virus to the point where it is now accepted that the vaccines do not prevent the transmission of the disease. For sure, the vaccines were not granted EUA approval based on preventing catching or transmitting the virus, but rather preventing deaths (and maybe reducing hospitalizations). But now that the initial evidence is in that it does not prevent transmission of the Delta variant. I think this finding was in part based on the recent Cape Cod cluster. The results of this data I believe precipitated the CDC’s flip on the mask mandate for vaccinated people

If so, then it seems that could void or lessen the rationale and the fear people have that the unvaccinated are the primary spreaders of the disease. If the data in the next weeks and months stays the same on this point, that might have some implications of the reasonableness of continued university mandates, at least to the extent they are based on the fear that the unvaccinated are the spreaders of disease. I do note that some of the vaccines in school mandates are for non-contagious diseases (tetanus) or for limited contagious diseases. So there is precedent for mandatory vaccination apart from the risk created by the individual to others. Still, it is an interesting issue that might be worth pursuing.

There are two other implications or consequences which follow or may follow from the fact that the vaccine does not prevent the transmission of the Delta variant. First, and something we are just starting to see; things are starting to get canceled or pushed back. Events and in-office work start dates for example. Many of the companies that had set September back to office deadlines are pushing the deadlines back to January. We are also September public events starting to be canceled, like Stevie Nix canceling her September conferences. I think the next shoe to drop might or will be universities or public schools. One Georgia school has just sent everyone home due to an outbreak.

If things keep getting worse, I can see some universities going back to virtual classes again, or at least having that as an option. We could see reluctance from university staff and teachers about going back, even with the vaccination, because of break-out cases. I also think that despite the public health establishment’s reassurance that the vaccinated won’t go to the hospital and die, some have and some will continue to be hospitalized and die, in which case, we’ll be to where we were last year, and might remain there until the next break or until there are treatments which are widely acknowledged to work. That might seem overly pessimistic, but don’t bet against what people (and especially the establishment) will do when they are afraid.

If schools that have a COVID mandate do go back to zoom learning or give students and teachers the option, then of course that impacts the rationale for the mandate for students who do remote learning. My impression is that for now, mandates apply even to remote learning, which seems odd and beyond the obvious rationale of a university mandate. So, that is another area that needs to be looked at.

Finally, Los Angeles Country is considering requiring vaccination for public events like concerts and restaurants, and gyms. The cases from last year are all over the place. We know that the Supremes will apply strict scrutiny for a restriction that applies to churches. But LA County is actually thinking about barring the unvaccinated from retail establishments. Does that including grocery stores? I don’t know, but I think that would be a step to far. It’s hard to believe that the courts would uphold a regulation that disallowed citizens from buying groceries, but hey it’s California, so who knows. I am sure that many Angelenos are paying very close attention to those city council meetings. That would be a good place to make your voices heard (in a respectful and rational manner). I have to believe that a majority of council members haven’t completely lost their common sense. And if they have, there will be multiple lawsuits challenging that regulation and I think the courts will strike down a county ban on at least that part of the retail aspect of the reg. I should point out that while I think a country requirement for vaccination to shop (at least grocery shop) would be struck down, I think individual stores could legally impose such a requirement, just as they can impose a mask requirement. However, stores are in the business of making money, and eliminating 30% of potential customers is not the best way to make money. So I don’t see that happening in the current state of COVID affairs.

What about Mandatory Public School Vaccination?

Of course, there is no EUA for the under 12, and California does currently have a restriction on new vaccines in the vaccine schedule which requires a PBE (last time I checked). I think the bigger problem is going to be what happens if and when Delta hits the California schools. The authorities are going to have to weigh closure versus somehow trying to mandate vaccinations for school children who are not excluded from the EUA.

Also, looks like the Pfizer vaccine will have full approval/licensure by the end of this month, or early September. Of course, that obviates the “experimental” attack on the vaccine.

The backup position no doubt will be that approval was rushed, political and that the vaccine has not proven to be safe because there are no long-term studies. Plus, there are the standard lines of attack that vaccines approval have no control group, as well as the informed consent and right to bodily integrity arguments that have been raised in pretty much every prior attack on mandatory vaccination cases. And let’s not forgot the mother and father of all attacks on vaccines, namely, the conflict of interests and that the manufacturers are immune from civil liability. These last to me seem tone deaf in the middle of a pandemic, but that’s just my opinion. I think all of these arguments will be about as successful in court in COVID mandate litigation as they have been in the prior mandate litigations, meaning the courts will reject them in the COVID litigation context. If these arguments didn’t work in contagious disease-free times, then they certainly won’t work ( a fortiori, to the Latin or legally inclined) during a new wave in the pandemic. And no, I don’t think you will be able to convince the courts that there is no pandemic or that it’s not deadly, (to anyone of you who are still holding on to that view).

So, that’s how I see the new legal issues and potential challenges to be shaping up as we are about to enter the Delta variant mandate world.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

Kelly Sutton Medical Board Case Update

Kelly Sutton Medical Board Case Update

here is the link to the campaign update on the case.

https://gogetfunding.com/blog-single-update/?blogpre=7171807&single=65436

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

Call in info for Kelly Sutton’s Medical Board hearing which starts on Monday, June 14th

Call in info for Kelly Sutton’s Medical Board hearing which starts on Monday, June 14th

For those of you who want to listen to Kelly Sutton’s medical board hearing, here is the call-in information:

+1 916-245-8850,,220074720# United States, Sacramento

Phone Conference ID: 220 074 720#

You will only be able to listen and not see the hearing. It should start at 9 o’clock and it will continue with various breaks until somewhere between four and five. The hearing will probably last 3 to 3 1/2 days. The board only has one witness, its expert, Dr. Deborah Lehman who is a highly credentialed pediatric infectious disease specialist and professor from UCLA.

Final preparations today and this weekend.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

MEMO to the Los Angeles Unified School District teachers: There’s no such thing as a “religious exemption” to the mask requirement, and good luck with a pretextual “religious accommodation”

MEMO to the Los Angeles Unified School District teachers: There’s no such thing as a “religious exemption” to the mask requirement, and good luck with a pretextual “religious accommodation”

Apparently tomorrow, the Los Angeles Unified School district is requiring all teachers to wear masks all day in school and is also requiring weekly COVID testing with the PCR test. I know this because I’ve been getting emails and calls to my cell today from teachers wanting to obtain/assert a “religious exemption” to the mask requirement.

First, I have a few choice words for the person who posted my cell phone number and said it was a good idea to call me on the weekend.

Second, there is no such thing as a religious exemption to a health and safety public school employee mandate. Employers are required under federal employment law to offer a reasonable accommodation to a work condition, IF there is a reasonable accommodation to be made that will not adversely affect public health in the judgment of the employer.

In the COVID world, that mainly means work at home or work alone, if that is viable. Obviously, there are jobs where that is not viable like food servers and airline flight personnel, and I would argue teachers when schools have reopened for in-person learning. Accordingly, I do not think there is a reasonable accommodation to a mask requirement for a school teacher, especially since the students are also required to wear a mask. Students and their parents would get pretty heaved off if everyone in the school had to wear a mask except the teacher. That’s just not going to fly.

And I don’t care what biblical verse you quote because it will sound as pretextual as it is. And by the way, it is probably not a good idea to say you object to covering your face because Muslim women do it and you are not a Muslim. (actual statement from an inquiring teacher)

And no, I am not interested in representing any of you teachers who want to exercise your religious freedom not to wear a mask even though all your students are wearing them. I want to see every school opened, and if the authorities are going to require everyone to wear a mask, that’s ok with me, as long as they open the schools and keep them open.

The required PCR testing issue is more complicated. As you all know, it is only EUA allowed not FDA cleared, which under federal law means or should mean that it can’t be compulsory, meaning mandated by the federal government.

As I stated in prior posts, California has a statutory Nuremberg Code, but I haven’t looked at it hard in the context of a test and I think there is some wiggle room even with respect to therapies.

The issue has been litigated in New York when New York City required the PCR test for teachers. But, the judge refused to grant a preliminary injunction stopping it, which was what I thought he would do. I am sure the judge wanted the schools to be reopened and he wasn’t going to be the one to hold that up and substitute his layman public health judgment for the judgment of the public health officials who were responsible to protect the health of the students, teachers and everyone else in the schools. Judges typically reflect the established scientific consensus; they do not normally take the minority view or any view other than what those entrusted with making these decisions decide.

So I am inclined to think that the California courts would uphold the PCR test, or at least, not grant a preliminary injunction stopping a school district from requiring it. If that were to happen, I think it would take more than a set of papers back and for and an oral argument on a motion for a preliminary injunction. Why? because… you guessed it, they want to get and keep the schools open, and the safest play for any judge to do that is not to interfere with the decision of the authorities, and if that means bending some state or federal language to kick the can down the road, that’s what will be done.

I’d like to say that I wish the LA teachers who are “religiously” opposed to wearing a mask good luck tomorrow, but I won’t because I don’t wish them good luck. They will not receive a warm reception from the authorities. Or at least I hope they won’t because I want the school to open and stay open, and if the kids have to wear masks, so should the teachers.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

addendum: for those who complain that it’s a free country or should be, and no one should have to wear a mask. What I can say is the law is otherwise. Your personal freedom ends or is limited by consideration of the person next to you. You don’t have the right to endanger other people. And, no one or small group of individuals have the right to make their own determinations about what endangers other people. That is left to the people who have been hired to make those decisions with very, very limited review by the courts. Bottom line, wear a mask if you are required to or quit and do something else that does not require it.

California Federal Constitutional Challenge to Vaccine Mandates Filed; Preliminary Injunction Hearing Set for Late February; GO GET ‘EM Greg and Ray!

California Federal Constitutional Challenge to Vaccine Mandates Filed; Preliminary Injunction Hearing Set for Late February; GO GET ‘EM Greg and Ray!

For the last many months, my friend, colleague, and behind-the-scenes advisor on both the UC flu mandate case and Ken Stoller’s Medical Board case has been telling me about some massive lawsuit he was preparing. Well, it has finally arrived. Greg and ace SoCAL litigator Ray Flores have filed a federal constitutional lawsuit in the Eastern District of California against one defendant, the President of the United States. The lawsuit is basically asking him to remove all vaccine mandates in the entire country.  I said it was bold. There is a preliminary injunction hearing set for late February.

Leaving the merits aside, this lawsuit serves two very important functions for those who have concerns with the mandatory vaccination program. First, the papers contain the most comprehensive and documented exposition of the problems with the country’s entire mandatory vaccination system that I have ever seen (and I’ve seen a lot). Along the way, it seeks judicial recognition of the negative role childhood vaccines have played in children’s health, and it seeks to affirm the vax vs unvax study published by Paul Thomas and James Lyons Weiler. (Now you see how bold this lawsuit is.)

Second, it perfectly manifests and voices the indignation and frustration which a growing number of Americans have with the COVID vaccine rollout and the fear that it will be made mandatory and further erode the rights of citizens.  Win, lose, or draw, I see Greg’s papers as a clarion call to the vaccine concerned community, and it will be received as most welcome.

And finally, it’s a hella of a read, and it will make your day!

Here is a link that has all the papers filed in the case.

The Control Group Litigation

FYI: this is a community-supported lawsuit and not funded by any organization, so if you can help support this project financially, please do. There is a “donate” button on the web site.

GO get ’em, Greg and Ray!

Rick Jaffe, Esq.