Richard Jaffe, Esq.

(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

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

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

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 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

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

The Supremes have just released its opinion on New York’s open carry of guns law, aka New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen. . Here are the opinions. 20-843_7j80 In short, the Supremes (or the conservative majority) struck down the New York law which restricted the open carrying of legally owned guns because it violated the Second Amendment, as it was understood back when the Constitution was written by a bunch of white racist, misogynistic slave owners (many…

Read More Read More

I have written quite a few posts about Assembly Bill 2098, which was created to scare physicians from criticizing the conventional view about Covid 19 (i.e., the vaccines are completely safe and effective with virtually no risk of serious harm, off-label drugs for Covid like Ivermectin and HCQ are unproven and dangerous, and masks and lockdowns work). https://wp.me/p7pwQD-1it. The original bill would have made speaking challenging the conventional narrative a board-disciplinable offense. However, the original bill was modified and now…

Read More Read More