The Lawsuit Against SB 277 Has Been Filed…

by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen  

So, I called attorney Jim Turner about 5:00AM PST this morning and say “Where’s the case, dude?”  He laughed…  He’d been up all night.  Right now it’s 5:00PM PST on Friday, July 1st, 2016  and I’ve got the final copy of the case against SB 277 in my hands.  It will take a while to get this article out – a lot to read, and make phone calls about.  But…

I LOVE it.

The case I talked about two days ago has been electronically filed by Carl Lewis in the San Diego Federal Court.  I have attached copies of each of the individual document sets to this article.  They will be easy to find.  Take the time to familiarize yourself.

The actual name of the filing is “Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief – Temporary Restraining Order Sought.”  Below I will explain what all that means.

And, there’s a bunch of backup documents.  You can see every one.

But first…

Let me make a few points so we are all on the same page.

(1)  I’ve been around lawsuits my whole life, and anyone who thinks that legal actions are something that you sit down in front of a computer, grab some boilerplate language, fill in some blanks on a form, and whiz-bang, off you go, is watching the wrong TV channels. Jim and the other attorneys put WAY MORE work into this preparation than they will ever recover in fees.  Why?  Because they are who they are.  Read the actual Complaint and you will be amazed.

(2)  This case, getting rid of California’s SB 277, is epic. Why?  The issues are not just about vaccines.  If you think about it a line has been drawn in the sand.  This case is about whether a one-world-type-government is going to be able to control EVERY aspect of our lives, including what can forcibly be put into our bodies, and by whom, and when.  This case asks the questions “Who owns our bodies?  Who owns our children?”  In California, the government here, in the form of the State Department of Health, has decided that THEY own you and your children.  One of their county subsidiaries, Santa Barbara, already tried to STOP medical exemptions for vaccines on their own.  They, of course, have become a Defendant in this case.

(3)  If you think about it, here, in California, every citizen is close to being at risk of being dragged out of their cars by the hair, thrown on the ground, and injected with the full complement of CDC Recommended Adult Vaccines (92?) to “protect the public.” We are VERY close…  The battle lines are right here.  This is the battle to fight.

(4)  SB 277 was, I think, about setting up a medical DELIVERY system, by injection, that the public is NOT ALLOWED TO QUESTION – mandatory vaccines. Why would anyone do that?  As young women of child-bearing age in Nigeria found out, the answer is a horror story – last year, millions of them were sterilized with World Health Organization (WHO) vaccines they thought, and were told, were “for their own good.”  As the Catholic Church points out, WHO did this in Mexico and the Philippines before Nigeria.  In India citizens are being injected with polio.  Not the polio vaccine – polio.

(5)  I said several years ago that the huge, and successful, US Health Freedom Movement needs to step into the Autism (vaccine damage) issue and help. Notice the names of three of the actual Plaintiffs in the filed suit – they are all BIG, influential, Health Freedom Movement organizations.  Look around at all of the people helping this issue.  There is an unmistakable blend.  We’re here to help.  And we are.  We, in the Health Freedom Movement are going to show you how to play hardball.  And you will learn fast.

Now, about today’s filing…

It is called a “Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief – Temporary Restraining Order Sought.” What, exactly is that?  It is simple…

(1)  The Plaintiffs are asking the Court, in this case, to temporarily stop the enforcement of SB 277 until the issues brought to the Court, in the Motion, are finally decided, and then,

(2) on the findings, issue a Permanent Injunction against SB 277.

What is the likelihood of success?  Depends.  However, even if the Judge grants the Restraining Order it is likely the State will Appeal.  In short, if we lose the first round we Appeal.  If the State loses the first round they Appeal.  It goes to a Federal Appeals Court – in this case the Ninth Circuit.

No big deal…  it is just how things work.  It will be fun.

What are the specifics?

The Case Outline…

 

getPictures
San Diego Federal Court Building

Now I’m looking at the final filed copies…  So, now everything is right here for all of us to look at.  So…

(1)  There are TEN Plaintiffs. four non-profit organization, and six individuals.

(2)  There are TEN Defendant groups– which include the State of California Department of Health, Department of Education, three Schools Districts, and one County Public Health Department (Santa Barbara), and their employees, some named individually, and others in a group.

(3)  There are, SIX Counts (Causes of Action) – (a)  Infringement on Rights protected by the California Constitution, (b)  Infringement on Rights protected by the US Constitution, (c)  Violation of Federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), (d)  Violation of California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and (e)  Violation of California Information Practices Act, and (f)  Violation of California Health and Safety Code 120440.

  The Relief Requested has FIVE parts –

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that the Court grant judgment for Plaintiffs and:

(1)  Declare unconstitutional and set aside SB 277 and its regulatory scheme;

(2)  Grant temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the enforcement of the unconstitutional ban on personal belief and religious objections and the restriction of medical choice exemptions;

(3)  Grant temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief immediately prohibiting the denial of school admission to the children of the individual Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated.

(4)  Award to Plaintiffs reasonable attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, and costs incurred in connection with this action; and

(5)  Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Case Introduction… (right from the document)

(1)  Effective July 1, 2016, SB 277 will bar children from attending any public and private school unless proof is provided that the child has received multiple doses of vaccines for ten enumerated childhood diseases.

(2)  SB 277 abolished the Personal Belief Exemption (“PBE”) to California’s school vaccination requirements and arguably eliminated an existing exemption from vaccination based on religious beliefs.

(3)  Forty-seven states currently allow either a religious or a conscientious/personal belief exemption from school vaccination mandates.

(4)  The California Supreme Court has long recognized that a child’s right to an education is a fundamental right guaranteed by the California Constitution. Laws that impact the fundamental right to education, and which are not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, are unconstitutional. As the court held in Serrano v. Priest 18 Cal 3d 584 at 606 (1971) “We indulge in no hyperbole to assert that society has a compelling interest in affording children an opportunity to attend school.”

(5)  The State has broad responsibility to ensure basic educational equality and to provide a statewide public education system open on equal terms to all.

(6)  Since 1961, California has allowed a philosophical exemption to vaccination based on one’s personal beliefs.

(7)  Since 1961, the number of vaccines and vaccine doses required for school attendance have dramatically increased.

(8)  Notwithstanding the increase in required vaccines and vaccine doses, PBE rates have always remained below four percent.

(9)  For decades, full vaccination coverage in California has remained well above 95% for each required vaccine.

(10)  Public health experts agree that 95% vaccination coverage meets or exceeds the levels of vaccination theorized to achieve herd immunity for infectious diseases for which vaccines are available.

(11)  California’s PBE rate has not exceeded four percent of the entire population of school children.

(12)  At the time SB 277 was enacted, according to the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”), over 97% of California’s school-aged children were fully vaccinated for each of the vaccines required by SB 277.

(13)  Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the children with PBEs are selectively vaccinated. They received some, but not all of the required vaccine doses.

(14) Only one year before SB 277 was enacted, the Immunization Branch of the CDPH stated that “[v]accination coverage in California is at or near all-time high levels.”

(15)  At the time SB 277 was enacted, California had seen a 19 percent reduction in PBEs when AB 2109 (Pan, 2012) went into effect.

(16)  Notwithstanding declining PBE rates and historically high vaccination rates, SB 277 was enacted to permanently bar children who do not receive every dose of every mandated vaccine from all public and private schools.

(17)  Plaintiffs have thus been denied their fundamental right to an education guaranteed by the California Constitution.

The Plaintiffs…

There are six individual Plaintiffs and four non-profit Plaintiffs:

The individuals:  

(1)  Plaintiff Ana Whitlow resides with her husband, family and minor sons B.A.W. and D.M.F-W., in the city of San Diego, located in San Diego County. Plaintiff Ana Whitlow and her husband have chosen to selectively vaccinate B.A.W. and D.M.F-W. to avoid vaccines that offend their religious beliefs by virtue of certain ingredients, and in the interest of B.A.W’s and D.M.F-W’s health and wellbeing.  Plaintiff Ana Whitlow’s son D.M.F-W. shows sufficient antibody levels to be deemed “proof of immunity” to the diseases for which he has not received all required vaccine doses.  Plaintiff Ana Whitlow seeks injunctive relief requiring the defendant state actors and agencies of the State of California to admit B.A.W. into kindergarten at the defendant Ocean Beach Elementary School, operated by the defendant San Diego Unified School District.  Plaintiff Ana Whitlow seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the defendant state actors and agencies of the State of California from denying admission of D.M.F-W into the defendant Correa Middle School, operated by the San Diego Unified School District. (Decl. of Ana Whitlock, pp. 1-6)

(2)  Plaintiff Erik Nicolaisen lives with his wife, family and minor son A.W.N. in Studio City, Los Angeles County, California. Erik Nicolaisen in concert with A.W.N’s mother has chosen to selectively vaccinate A.W.N. in the interest of A.W.N’s health and wellbeing, and seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the defendant state actors and agencies of the State of California from denying A.W.N. into the Carpenter Elementary School, operated by the Los Angeles Unified School District. (Decl. of Erik Nicolaisen, pp. 1-5)

(3)  Plaintiff Dene Schultze-Alva resides with her husband, family and minor daughter S.M.A. in Sierra Madre, California, in Los Angeles County. Plaintiff Dene Schultze-Alva has chosen to selectively vaccinate S.M.A. according to the guidance of her religion and in the interest of S.M.A’s health and wellbeing, and seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the defendant state actors and agencies of the State of California from denying admission of S.M.A. into the preschool facility known as the Early Childhood Development Center located in Altedena California, operated by the Pasadena Unified School District. (Decl. of Dr. Dene Schultze-Alva, pp. 1-6)

(4)  Plaintiff Nicole Andrade resides in Placer County, near Loomis, California, with her husband and family, including her minor daughter I.G.A., who is ready to enter the seventh grade. Plaintiff Nicole Andrade is religiously opposed to vaccines manufactured from aborted fetal cell lines, having fully vaccinated her oldest child before she became aware that Measles Mumps Rubella vaccine is manufactured using an aborted fetal cell line.  Plaintiff Nicole Andrade has taken up in her prayers the question of whether to vaccinate, and believes that God would want her pro-life family to wait for more pure and safe vaccines, before vaccinating I.G.A. again.  Plaintiff Nicole Andrade has chosen to selectively vaccinate S.M.A. according to the guidance of her religion and in the interest of S.M.A’s health and wellbeing and seeks an order prohibiting the defendant state actors and agencies of the State of California from denying admission of I.G.A. into Franklin Elementary School, operated by the Loomis Union School District. (Decl. of Nicole Andrade, pp. 1-6)

(5)  Plaintiff Brianna Owens resides in Petrolia, Humboldt County, California. She is the parent of four children, two of whom are impacted by SB 277 and its ban from education of children who are not fully vaccinated. She has been hesitant to vaccinate her children because of a family history of autoimmune disease and her own reaction to the Tdap vaccine when she was 26 years old. Her daughter received the Tdap vaccine and had a reaction similar to her own, but less severe. Her pediatrician told her that she could not get a medical exemption for her children because he had received a “special class” where he was told that to qualify for a medical exemption her children would have to have a “documented anaphylactic reaction” to a particular vaccine and then only for that particular vaccine. She seeks an order prohibiting the defendant state actors and agencies of the State of California from denying admission of her children into school under SB 277. (Decl. of Brianna Owens, pp. 1-5)

(6)  Plaintiff Veronica Delgado is the parent of seven children, one of whom, A.N.D., has been selectively vaccinated and is about to enter 7th A.N.D. had a PBE prior to the effective date of SB 277 but is now being told he cannot return to school unless his vaccinations are “caught up.” He also has an IEP, but she has been told by the school that it does not entitle him to an exemption. Next year she will have a second child, who also has an IEP that she believes is a consequence of a vaccine reaction, ready to enter 7th grade who will encounter the same problem. She seeks an order prohibiting the defendant state actors and agencies of the State of California from denying admission of her children into school under SB 277. (Decl. of Veronica Delgado, pp. 1-4)

The non-profits – 

(1)  Plaintiff E4A Foundation is a non-profit organization under the laws of the State of Nevada, with its principal place of business in California, whose purpose is to promote and protect equal access to public and private education.  I will comment on this Plaintiff separately.

(2)  Plaintiff Weston A. Price Foundation is a nonprofit, tax exempt nutrition education foundation whose members follow healthy natural approaches to health and healing. It has 39 local chapters and 1,836 members in California, many of whom are families with young children who would avail themselves, or may have in the past received, a personal belief exemption.

(3)  Plaintiff Citizens for Health is a nonprofit, 501(c)(4) advocacy organization providing information about natural healing and laws affecting health to approximately 30,000 Californians.

(4)  Plaintiff Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA) is a Georgia-based nonprofit corporation founded in 1992.  The ANH-USA mission is to protect access to natural health options and a toxin free lifestyle, including the ability to decline vaccination or modify the vaccine schedule for one’s children. The ANH -USA consists of over 500,000 members, including 78,000 California residents, many of whom will be harmed by SB 277 because they will not be able to make their own decisions for their school age children based on their beliefs about vaccine-related harms.

There is a “Plaintiff” Fly in the Ointment…

Three of the non-profits I know personally – and they have substance.  I know their leadership and they are first rate groups, with track records, doing first-rate things.

The fourth, the so-called E4A Foundation appears to be a Canary Party operation.  It is run by Rebecca Estepp, one of the Canary Party people, who ran earlier losing campaigns.   Her press release about the case, today, asked for contributions to be sent to the OKOC gofundme page.  Jim Turner did not know this connection. He does now.

Since the Team of people I am associated with have decided to be “inclusive” rather than “exclusive” we are looking at whether or not this group, Canary, or not, could work with the rest of us – but NOT in a leadership role.

Comment on this please.

In Short…

I am pleased with this case.    To see the actual case filing click on : Whitlow Complaint 7-1-16 (3).

Tomorrow I will show you what is going to happen at the upcoming TRO hearing.

 

Stay tuned…

Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

37 thoughts on “The Lawsuit Against SB 277 Has Been Filed…”

  1. I think that a lot of people are going to be disappointed with this filing – most probably because they don’t understand what is being attempted.

    Whilst the total banning of vaccines, given the complete absence of any hard evidence showing effectiveness and long history of minor and major damage (including deaths), must be our ultimate aim, such would not help in the present situation.

    Judges are also people. Many are also parents. They have been indoctrinated with vaccination propaganda throughout their lives. An action now seeking to ban vaccines would fail simply because of the enormous intellectual leap that you would be asking the people who deal with the case to make. The best that could be achieved would be to bump the case up to the next level without any ruling, i.e. no present relief from SB277.

    Narrowing the case down to “basically obedient people who accept some vaccination but not all” has a very high chance of success, including the temporary injunctions, because the judge can follow and (as a family man) sympathise with the case presented.

    What I would like to see parallel hereto is a criminal class action alleging grievous bodily harm and manslaughter (I think that’s 2nd degree murder in the US) – in fact any sort of court action which would put the pharma manufacturers and the provaxxers into a state of having to PROVE that vaccination works; a thing which they have been consistently unable to do for more than a century.
    Anything in the pipeline Tim?

    Blessed be

    Karma

  2. I’d like to see a 7th count, violation of the Nuremberg Code for informed consent. Possibly allowing the case to be brought to the Inter American Court of Human Rights if needed.

  3. Regarding the canary group, sounds like they are engaging in this lawsuit for a possible gain unrelated to that of personal liberty…

  4. Seriously?!? Why are you after Becky?!? She has been fighting against vaccine damage for a very long time. Her heart and soul is all about trying to prevent more harm to children that she has experienced personally with her own child’s vaccine damage. And OKOC has been raising money for this lawsuit for months. OKOC is a large group of CALIFORNIA parents, many of us with vaccine injured children, fighting against SB277, meeting with congressional members, showing up at rallies, getting petitions signed and trying to fight against the bought politicians who have sidestepped the laws throughout this process. Not sure why you are trying to throw is all under the bus in this article. Things may not have gone the way we wanted it to go, but we have been standing up to the beast and we are #NotGoingAway. How about celebrating Becky for continuing her more than a decade long fight if you want to have a side comment about her.

  5. The issue with “Becky” is TRANSPARENCY. “Becky” created a new group in June 2016 , apparently JUST FOR this lawsuit. OKOC is an EXCLUSIVE group who forbids any discussion of strategies or tactics on its pages BANNING anyone who asks questions. More, OKOC, itself, is NOT TRANSPARENT. Worse, they can’t even keep up State requirements for organizational records.

    The Canary Party/Health Choice group, tightly controlling the first THREE campaigns LOST all three campaigns, BANNING anyone who disagreed with their amateurish tactics and strategy – operating as though they were running a Junior High Prom, not a political campaign. MORE, THEY are NOT willing to work with others and REJECT offerings to put together strategy teams.

    In the US Health Freedom Movement we are accustomed to working with others we don’t always agree with over strategies and tactics. We consider this to be an asset – and it is. We WANT to hear our allies’ opinions about what should happen. Does that work? Of course it does. If your friends won’t tell you when you are wrong your enemies CERTAINLY will. But then, in the US Health Freedom world we play to win. It isn’t important to us to have our picture taken with a Congressman – we want victories. And, we get them…

    Thank you for your concerns… And welcome to the game.

  6. I find it interesting that this infernal SB277 does force private schools to implement the pro-vax treachery.

    Technically, some homeschool parents band together to set up a private school and so it would seem that the infernal SB277 does impact HOME SCHOOLING as well. Maybe that option of setting up private home-based education does not exist in Calif?? If homeschooling is affected, it would seem that the SB277 does indeed prevent children from availing any educational growth.

    But if homeschooling is not affected by the ban then (4) is false. It just puts the obligation back where it came from, since state claims of responsibility are not the original basis of a child’s right to educational growth. The state is not then prohibiting the fundamental right.

    Otherwise, number (4) is not satisfied in this argument since the State can simply say that homeschooling is available and so it simply becomes what parents must take their proper responsibility for.

    As for (5)………
    The ‘equal’ requirement IS satisfied by SB277 (not as 5 claims) since they want uniformity of vax-status, that’s an ‘equal terms’ basis. Especially we’d wonder if that (5) claim is not a hazard in Court battling..?? It’s wrong.

  7. – Where is the proof it’s been filed?
    – Why are defendants not named for each specific cause of action?
    – How can a TRO be issued against a law? TROs are for people, not laws.
    – Tim Bolen – You HATE the Canary Party. Why the sudden change of alliance?
    – Why are you “OK” with OKOC being an unregistered charity that has received two notices from the state to come into compliance? They are NOT reporting income, which is a crime.
    – OKOC collected a minimum of $20K last year. Where is that money?
    – Why is your article ending with a link to an illegal charity?
    – Where is the money Tim Donnelly gave to the CCA?
    – Why are lawyers in this suit parroting that California has a high vaccine compliance rate and yet also saying it’s the vaccinated who are contracting the disease. Which is it – people believe in vaccines so we don’t need this law or vaccines don’t work? The lawsuit seems to contract itself.

  8. Susan – I don’t HATE the Canary Party. I find them ludicrous, inept, ineffectual, childish, insular, wrongly focused, self-promoting, etc.

    What I am looking for here is UNITY. We have a long, hard fight ahead. If we have to do some internal house cleaning in California – so be it.

    We need to be focused on the issues, setting goals and objectives and action plans to get there. But Canary seems to think that getting their lipstick to match their toenail color for the FaceBook photos is top tier.

    No, Canary is NOT running this lawsuit – the attorneys are. How do I know that? Guess…

  9. I know I’ve posted it before, but additionally there is already precedence with Wong Wai v Williamson that SB277 violates Equal Protection. When mandatory vaccinations are implemented, they have to apply to everyone equally in like condition, which is the case in both Mississippi and West Virginia.

    1) SB277 will take 6 years to implement with the vast majority of the approximately 200,000 PBE students not fully vaccinated. SB277 singles out and puts strict, mandatory requirements on a few thousand students, while most of the other public/private school students are unaffected. Just like in Wong Wai, it is a very hard argument to make that only a few thousand school children in the state should have to comply with mandatory vaccinations.

    2) Not only is the law being enforced in a haphazard way, the law itself is inconsistent in its application. IEP’s were mentioned in the lawsuit but, there are 2 other instances of inconsistent and unequal enforcement:

    Grandfathered in – schools didn’t give parents notice of this time period of 12/31/15. So parents were able to grandfather in only if they had some inside knowledge about this law. Furthermore, as some schools are K-12 or K-8, the burden of mandatory vaccinations or loss of classroom instruction, only falls on Kindergarteners and 7th graders. That is not equal protection under a mandatory state law, where a constitutional right is being revoked.

    Homeless students are allowed to enroll without any record of immunization. Furthermore, the law simply states that the should be reminded to get the required immunizations, but there is no provision to force them out of classroom based instruction.

    The often referenced Jacobson v Mass grappled with the same concern about Equal Protection. “It is said, however, that the statute, as interpreted by the state court, although making an exception in favor of children certified by a registered physician to be unfit subjects for vaccination, makes no exception in case of adults in like condition. But this cannot be deemed a denial of the equal protection of the laws to adults; for the statute is APPLICABLE EQUALLY TO ALL IN LIKE CONDITION”.

    As SB277 is currently written, mandatory vaccinations or the loss of a constitutional right to a public education, will not be applicable equally to all in like condition and violates Equal Protection.

  10. Rebecca Estepp is a good spokesperson and has spoken many times to major media on the issue of vaccines and autism. Though I only know her from social media she seems like an intelligent person who has a big heart. I don’t know much about her organizational abilities but is probably good at it considering she is from a military family which usually means hard work and discipline are important values. Maybe time to open the tent up a little wider to include more in the fight. Whatever organization she is associated with is lucky to have her.

  11. In the Plaintiffs section, it says (1) Ana Whitlow in the beginning of that section, but Ana Whitlock at the end of that section.

    Not sure if that typo would have any effect, but thought I should point it out anyway.

  12. I find the information in Complaint paragraph 45 very interesting. Apparently, based on Gov. Jerry Brownshirt’s signing statement, the religious conscientious objector exemption is still in play. “I will direct the department to allow for a separate religious exemption on the form.”
    Does that mean Californians may still assert a religious exemption? Can anyone from California share what they know about asserting CO status now that the law has come into effect?

  13. Although this lawsuit sounds amazing I do have concerns SB277 activists are once again failing to demand transparency in regards to fundraising efforts. “The lawsuit against SB277 had been filed.
    We need funding. Please help us to support it by donating to the Go Fund Me platform” begs the “so-called E4A Foundation.”

    Why are contributions to be sent to the OKOC gofundme page?

    In April the http://www.ourkidsourchoice.org website said, “Health Choice United, Inc. is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization, which files taxes QUARTERLY to show all income and expenses. These filings are public record.” Within 24 hrs. of my publicly questioning why no quarterly filings exist the website was updated to read “Health Choice United, Inc. is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization, which files taxes ANNUALLY to show all income and expenses. These filings are public record.” Has anyone found Health Choice United Inc.’s IRS 990 filing that was due May 15, 2016? Of course not but that hasn’t stopped 408 individuals from donating $26,471 to date.

    Why is Health Choice United Inc. listed as a corporation on the Secretary of State website but NOT listed as a tax exempt organization on ftb.ca.gov? http://tinyurl.com/z4qo3jl

    What happened to the approx. $17,000 OKOC raised for “lawyers” in April of 2015?

    Why was $46,017.31 in illegally obtained SB277 Referendum donations “given” to the California Chiropractic Association and in turn to this lawsuit?

    Most importantly, why does nobody seem to care or demand answers to these questions?

  14. My family practices alternative natural health care including midwifery for childbirth in hospital settings.

    Any of us (unvaccinated very healthy people) would be more than willing to come forward and serve to testify.

    This law has caused mental anguish and stress and suffering and anxiety for me as a single young mother of 3 children and has forced me to choose homeschool over a formal education for my children who deserve their right to a formal school setting.

    Not only that but ultimately SB277 has caused enough conflict in my work/school/home life that I am forced to move out of state and start my career from the ground up again in order to maintain my integrity as a woman of choice in personal, religious, scientific, and philosophical freedom regarding the health care choices for myself and my children.

    This law is stripping us of our constitutional and God given rights, and we should not be refused education for something we grew up without for over 30years.

    The penalty should be on the governor and people imposing this law, not on the mothers and children.

  15. Thank YOU so much for the time and energy you have put out to inform people! We are seeing a large, and growing, number of people who are working selflessly for a critically important cause- medical freedom and the protection from discrimination.
    Article 6 – Consent

    1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
    http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

    One quick note, please edit- it was Kenya that saw sterilizing agents in vaccines specifically targeting young women. Not Nigeria. Thanks again!

    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/01/19/kenyan-bishops-call-for-no-more-tetanus-vaccines-until-further-tests/

  16. I like how your reaching for the stars and glad to finally see someone with some knowledge of law fighting to gain some of our libertys back. I would like to know how can in this day and age a law be past to force children to be vaccinated to attend education. When the companies making these vaccines are exempt from any liability. Oh right we live in a country where ignorance is bliss. As long as I can have my new iPhone and Starbucks you can do what you want with my children. Were Number 1 USA!

  17. I’m thrilled about this filing since SB 277 has forced me to quit my job to homeschool my kids (I have an incoming kindergartner). Do you know if a similar lawsuit will be launched against SB 792? I am currently a victim of that law, as I had hoped to continue working as a pediatric PT on an as-needed basis, but because I’m currently pregnant, I refuse to get the dTap vaccine. Due to hospital policy regarding infants and pertussis, nobody will write a medical exemption for me, though the product insert states “Safety and effectiveness of Adacel vaccine have not been established in pregnant women.”

  18. Hi,
    I am from australia, but i believe these statistics will be of interest. In the USA the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System receives on average 30,000 reports per year. 13% of them are serious (disability, hospitalization, life threatening injury, or death).

    If about 30 million vaccines are administered each year in the US, this means that vaccinees have a 1 in 7700 risk of suffering a SERIOUS vaccine injury.

    THIS IS A HIGHER RISK THAN THE RISK OF GETTING MEASLES.

    Way higher than the “one in a million” doctors often mention.

    Remember, in Australia where we had 340 cases of measles in 2014 (the worst in a decade), this equates to a 1 in 70,000 risk.

    SO THEREFORE, THERE IS A NINE TIMES WORSE RISK OF SUFFERING A SERIOUS VACCINE INJURY, THAN EVEN GETTING MEASLES.

    Let alone an even lower risk of getting a “serious” complication or death from measles.

    PLUS, VAERS estimates that they only receive between 1 to 10% of all vaccine injuries occuring in the US!!!

    Please do your own research.
    This is based on easily available public statistics of disease incidence, and VAERS figures of vaccine injuries.

    I hope i am wrong.

    But if not, please remember this shocking fact:

    WE ARE HARMING MORE PEOPLE THAN WE ARE HELPING WITH VACCINES.

  19. California’s SB 277 was written to fail. Never, EVER include private schools in any public legislation / mandate. After all, only private school students will survive “vaccine holocaust”. Example, Amish children remain autism-free because the Amish run their own schools, churches, and church schools. Even though “separation of church and state” is not one of Bill of Rights, “separation” is practiced as though Constitutional. And further, religious sects are the only U.S. adult population that remains Alzheimer’s free. Australia is the final frontier, free from public health laws, still safe from vaccine mandates. Who else in the World could succeed in running off Navy for polluting dolphin bays and other natural habitats that support Australian tourism?

  20. These legislatures have crossed a bridge too far. Time for mass non compliance and civil disobedience. Gov Brown and the thugs in Sacramento are bringing in refugees from all over the world and not vaccinating them while forcing average citizens to “take all the shots” when we know some of them cause long term health problems. No way do we go along with this. What’s next? Passing laws saying we have to sacrifice our first born to them. Sacramento and all these politicians are out of control and need to be recalled right now, especially the tyrants who put this garbage legislation together.

  21. A thousand thanks to the attorneys who are brave enough to take on the monolithic pHARMaceutical industry and its ever-obedient minions. I do hope your plaintiffs roster can be strengthened to include such a variety of people with legitimate cause for complaint and diverse circumstances that no single “type” of person or complaint could be stereotyped as the essence of this case.

    I hope that donations to the attorneys and plaintiffs are chosen with good judgment, so that the cause of the suit is not weakened by financial irregularities, regardless of how seemingly minor. While I disagree with many political finance laws and IRS regulations, I advocate for following them while in the process of fighting them.

  22. When I was a child I was much impressed by the accounts of “traitors” It seemed to me that there was almost nothing worse than being a traitor. Do we need a new word, a new definition, ? I havent given this lengthy thought, but it would seem that we need some appropriate label for people who seek to endanger other citizens of their nation and deprive them of their natural rights.. on some pretext or other.

  23. I support this lawsuit against SB277. My daughter has more allergies than I can post and because of these allergies I have had to question any ingredient in any food or vaccine or anything that is to be given to her. If I didn’t question this she would not be alive today. We have a right to question and to chose for ourselves what is right for us and our children. We are not all created equal and shouldn’t be forced into anything that we do not believe in. Nobody can predict what is best for the greater good. Especially when there are obviously other agendas at play here.

  24. SB-792 is Discriminating against our beliefs and Segregation. It is bringing out a personal belief and a quite private one into the public to be scrutinized based on that belief. These laws are just plain unconstitutional! There is no way a healthy worker can pass on a disease that they don’t have. Same as a child but people use fear to spread the fear and all people want to do is protect their kids. It is ironic!!!! There have been exemptions as long as I can remember and no outbreaks in schools!. Only where there is a high population of international travelers have there been outbreaks. They have the disease. We healthy school children and workers don’t have the disease. This is just getting so far out of hand I honestly don’t know where it will stop.

  25. What can I do in the meantime if my child’s Ped won’t waiver her vaccines? Im a Chiropractor with 3 kids. I didn’t realize the intensity of this law to get my NOW 7th Grader in school. She starts 8/30 & I’m sick of the thought to vaccinate her. I read the law of 1 DPT & 2 MMR, but the school is saying all up to date?? That would be 5 shots plus the mentioned above. I haven’t read this anywhere. Can anyone advise? I have 1 week to figure this out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *