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.
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…
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.
There are six individual Plaintiffs and four non-profit Plaintiffs:
(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.
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.
Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen