Blog

The “You can’t Sue Me I’m in Charge” Defense…

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen  

There is no question, in my mind, what-so-ever, that Santa Barbara County Health Department’s Charity Dean MD started out to create a “Pilot Program” in California where she, Charity Dean (and her “lobbyist” friends?), would examine all Medical Exemptions for vaccines according to a made-up criteria designed by her (and her “lobbyist” friends?).

Then she was going to report HER definition of “suspicious activity,” through a SECRET NETWORK, directly, to Enforcement Officers at the California Medical Board for purposes of prosecution.

However, Charity got caught.  Whoops!  Paperwork showed up… and the attorneys for the “Good guys” got a hold of it.

So, little Charity got named as a Defendant…. Continue reading SB 277 Lawsuit – Charity Dean Responds….  Can you spell “OBFUSCATION?”

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen  

Behind the Scenes…

There’s a lot of work that goes on, in the background, taking an SB 277 type lawsuit forward, especially one with twenty-one (21) Plaintiffs and ten (10) Defendants.  Each of the Defendants has to be individually “served” with a copy of the lawsuit, and then the person who “served” the Defendant has to sign some papers showing where and when that process occurred.  Then the attorney has to file those “serving” papers with the Court.  Once each of the Defendants have been “served” they get about twenty (20) business days to lawyer up, and respond.

According to what I’m looking at in the Court Records, it looks like all of the Defendants have been “served.”  But, as of this morning, it looks as though only one of them has lawyered-up to respond.  They better get moving, for an August 12th, 2016 Preliminary Injunction Hearing is coming at their faces abruptly.  And for this kind of Hearing Judges DO NOT give delays and extensions.

So, soon we can expect some responses…. Continue reading SB 277 – Hunting Down the Defendants…

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen  

What is a Preliminary Injunction Hearing?

The whole purpose of the lawsuit against SB 277 is to stop it, and its spin-off activities, from being activated.

A Motion for Preliminary Injunction is a request to the Court for an Injunction before we begin arguing the lawsuit.  There will be an actual Court Hearing for this August 12^th, 2016, 1:30PM  in Courtroom 13A, Federal Court Building, San Diego, CA. (shown in the photo above).

What is an Injunction?

According to the Cornell School of Law it is:

An injunction is a court order requiring a person to do or cease doing a specific action. Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are temporary injunctions. They are issued early in a lawsuit to maintain the status quo by preventing a defendant from becoming insolvent or to stop the defendant from continuing his or her allegedly harmful actions. Choosing whether to grant temporary injunctive relief is a discretionary power of the court. Permanent injunctions are issued as a final judgment in a case. Failure to comply with an injunction may result in being held in contempt of court.

Getting an injunction is NOT an easy process.  A US Supreme Court Decision called “Winter vs Natural Resources Defense Council” set the four-factor preliminary injunction standards that are being used today in Federal Courts.

What the court will want to be convinced of is that for the Plaintiffs:

(1)  there is a likelihood of irreparable harm with no adequate remedy at law;

(2)  the balance of harm favors the movant;

(3)  there is a likelihood of success on the merits of the case;

(4)  the public interest favors the granting of the injunction. Continue reading SB 277 Lawsuit – Preliminary Injunction Hearing Date – August 12th, 2016

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen  

Down to the Nitty-Gritty of the SB 277 Lawsuit…

Yes, this is a lot to read.  But, here, after laying out the situation for the Court, comes the details of exactly what laws the people responsible for SB 277’s passing, and implementation, broke.  Yes, the language is strong and forceful, for it has to be.

What you are about to read is the essence of America – the expression, in language our forefathers would have used, to state what we, as Americans expect.  The attorneys who wrote these words pulled no punches.  They told it like it is.

We are on the march…

Below, is from the lawsuit First Amended Complaint document:

First Claim for Relief Against All Defendants (Violation of Freedom of Religion, Assembly, Parental Rights, 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

136. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

137. Defendants deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiffs of their right to Free Exercise of religion, as secured by the First Amendment and made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, by discriminating against Plaintiffs and their children because of the Plaintiffs’ religiously-motivated conduct in making exemption claims, including declining certain vaccines derived from or containing ingredients to which Plaintiffs object, including aborted fetal cells.

138. Defendants are also depriving Plaintiffs and their children of the right to freedom of assembly by depriving children of the right to attend secular or religious private schools of their choosing and by requiring that both public and private schools deny admission and education to children with PBEs.

139. Additionally, Defendants are infringing Plaintiffs’ rights to control the upbringing and education of their minor children according to the religion, system of values, and moral norms they deem appropriate and their rights to the care, custody, education of and association with their children.

140. Defendants are enforcing SB 277 under color of State law and are depriving and will continue to deprive Plaintiffs of numerous hybrid rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Continue reading SB 277 Lawsuit – Claims for Relief (The Nitty-Gritty)…