Richard Jaffe, Esq.

OK, it’s time to get into it: This will be a neutral overview to give a basic understanding of the law based on three critical distinctions: federal vs. state, EUA vs. vaccine licensure, and state vs. private party. The Feds vs. the State (and counties and municipalities) Question: Since Joe Biden has already said he doesn’t think the vaccine should be mandatory, doesn’t that end the discussion? Answer: Unfortunately not, because of relevant legal principle No. 1.  Public health mandates…

Read More Read More

For those following the Ken Stoller Medical Board case, here is the latest: The ALJ submitted her proposed decision to the Board on December 8th, that would be last Tuesday. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to see her decision until the earlier of 35 days from its submission to the Board or when the Board issues its decision. An ALJ’s proposed decision is reviewed by one of two board panels (panel A and B).  The next quarterly public board meeting…

Read More Read More

The impact of the Supreme Court’s recent shift on restrictions on religious services involving New York’s limitations on church and other religious services has reached California. Here is my post about that case: https://wp.me/p7pwQD-OS Yesterday, a Kern Country Superior Court judge granted similar relief to a Catholic priest in Father Trevor Burfitt v. Gavin Newsom.  The ruling held that the Governor’s order failed the strict scrutiny test, and hence the court granted a preliminary injunction by the Governor from enforcing…

Read More Read More

This will all play out in the media. Like I said yesterday, let the chips fall where they may. https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-britain-vaccine-idUSKBN28J1D1?taid=5fd0bfca0bc2ea000145b4c5&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter   Rick Jaffe, Esq.  

Short Answer: No one knows yet. As many of you know or can guess, EUA status does not mean that the safety and efficacy of the drug or biologic has been proven to the FDA’s standards of proof which are normally required for a drug or biologic to be marketed and introduced into interstate commerce. The FDA’s granting EUA status only means that the product”‘may be effective’ to prevent, diagnose, or treat serious or life-threatening diseases.” In case you are…

Read More Read More

Yesterday afternoon, Hayward Superior Court Judge Richard Seabolt issued his formal decision denying our preliminary injunction motion. Here it is:  Kiel v. UC Regents HG20-072843 Order Denying Preliminary Injunction Basically, he doesn’t think we made our case on the facts or the law. He reads all the lawsuits which upheld SB 277 (which removed the Personal Belief Exemption from California law) as strongly supporting the constitutionality of requiring adults to be vaccinated with a vaccine that is not related to…

Read More Read More

It is being reported that today, December 3rd, the Supreme Court reversed and sent back another case filed by a church complaining about restrictions on services, this time by the California  governor. The Court hasn’t posted the decision yet so I don’t know the details. Here is what I figure: The district court upheld the restriction under the the Supreme Court’s prior cases in the summer. (here is my post about the South Bay case:  https://wp.me/p7pwQD-FW  ) The case  went…

Read More Read More

Some have asked for an update on Ken Stoller’s medical board case, and the other board cases I am working on, so here it is. The Closing Arguments by the parties were submitted to the ALJ on November 9th. I won’t bore you all with our closing which gets into the weeds of the ten cases, but for grins, here is the introduction. I decided to start by abstracting the whole case and our position. “To begin, let’s present the…

Read More Read More

As you all know by now, on Wednesday night the Supreme Court stayed enforcement of NY Governor Cuomo’s restrictions on religious gatherings, in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v Andrew Cuomo. It is is just an temporary stay pending appeal, so technically it is not necessarily the Court’s final word on the matter, but nonetheless it is extremely significant as a predictor of future cases. It also may have significance for those interested in the mandatory vaccine issue….

Read More Read More

As most of you know, at the beginning of the November 5th hearing on our Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. the judge announced that he was denying the motion and then went to give a lengthy explanation of why. That was followed by a spirited back and forth between me and the judge about why I thought he was wrong.  The discussion didn’t change his mind, but in fairness, the judge had reviewed the voluminous papers submitted by both sides….

Read More Read More