SB 277 Lawsuit – Case Dismissed!

All Day Discussions End in Each Side Going Their Own Way – I Approve…

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen  

Here are  the words of the filed Document:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), all Plaintiffs hereby voluntarily dismiss the above captioned action, without prejudice, as to all Defendants, and without further notice. As grounds therefor, Plaintiffs state that no Defendant has filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The parties shall bear their respective costs.

 Dated: August 31, 2016 Respectfully submitted, SWANKIN & TURNER

What Does this mean?

It means that the arguing is over.  The Canaries can go to court on their own, dance around maypoles, spread flower petals under a Judge’s feet, ban anyone they want on their FaceBook groups, have their photos taken with court clerks, talk endlessly about unimportant issues, etc.  You know – we’ve all seen it.

They can now take their mantra “We know that vaccines are safe and effective (sniff, sniff), we just want personal choice (whimper, whimper)” all the way to the Supreme Court.

The REAL arguments will start with a brand new lawsuit to be filed by October 1st, 2016 by Turner, Moxley, Siri and company.

What will the new lawsuit say?

I’ll keep you posted as it develops.  But, for now I have two short interviews for you to watch.  The first is Robert Scott Bell interviewing Jim Turner.  The second is Robert interviewing Bob Moxley.  Both are about where the litigation needs to go.

https://www.facebook.com/TheRSBSHOW/videos/1300437393301374/ Video interview with Jim Turner

https://www.facebook.com/TheRSBSHOW/videos/1300495529962227/ Video interview with Robert Moxley

They will tell you like it is.  You get to pick which strategy you want to support!

There won’t be any flower petals with our team, but there will be serious meetings, with serious discussions.

I’ll keep you posted…

So, stay tuned…

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen 

31 thoughts on “SB 277 Lawsuit – Case Dismissed!”

  1. Great, now we are really talking! I hope this new one will not address the unconstitutionality of no vaccine- no schooling, but instead will address the real issue: the safety-not of vaccines. That is the issue. The team has its work cut out and it will be a hardous research, confronting and jumping the many obstacles that Pharma, CDC et all will create and place.

    The Canary will have the notoriety for a while, and failed miserably.

  2. So glad this is just the beginning. The lawsuits *aren’t* going to stop, they’re just going to get better and better, until this rediculous law gets overturned. Thanks Tim for the updates.

  3. Excellent news! The facts are damning; the state has no defense-they don’t know the facts anyway! They’re going to get a belly full of the ugly truth. Bless you. Good thing you’re not nice sometimes. Thugs pay no attention to nice.

  4. Nice work!!! I wait for your updates with baited breath while we are tucked away in another state waiting to return to our beloved California. What can we do for you??? You are doing so much for us!

  5. Physical damage, disease and suffering any judge can understand right away. Like negativity, it is easy to grasp its meaning. But something abstract like constitutional rights, not so easy. That is why “rights” should be at the end.

  6. I really hope as part of the appeal, our legal term will put every one of the Government’s “experts” on the stand and say:

    “here is the entire infant schedule adjusted for your body weight. Please inject them all so the Court can see just how safe these concoctions are.”

    Of course, they won’t. And our lawyers can say:

    “if the vaccination experts refuse to take these themselves then only a fool would accept that they are safe for our children”.

  7. Another fantastic Bolen Report! Me. Bolen is the only reliable source of information on the SB 277 case and other related issues! Thank you so much for this very important update!

  8. I’d like to add that that an attorney, who I trust implicitly, had previously stated that she thought it was a mistake that vaccine injuries weren’t being presented. So, glad they will be now!

    She also mentioned that it’s important to find a loophole (or to bring in different information) that was presented in other cases. For example, components of vaccines are being made in China; this was not the case 100 years ago. How can they force us to take a product manufactured in another country? Also, any ingredients, including tumor-derived cell lines, that are involved in the manufacturing process are not required to be disclosed. How can I give my informed consent if I don’t know what is in a vaccine or if they are being produced in a different country with different regulations?

    Also, years ago, I could sue a vaccine maker for my child’s injuries. My point is that laws and vaccines have changed significantly since the time this has been brought forth before the Supreme Court. I am relieved that Jim Turner recognizes this important argument!

  9. One more thought- I would argue that SB 277 doesn’t just discriminate against a child’s right to an equal education; rather, it discriminates against children as equal members of society. Teachers, school administrators and other adults in the community are not forced to take these vaccines to benefit the greater good of society. I am relatively confident that the mandated Polio vaccine was not limited to children, and that sets a new precedent.

  10. Sorry correction- I’m relatively sure that the Small Pox vaccine, which was mandated over a century ago was not limited to children.

  11. The idea of vaccines not being safe was already presented in Jacobsen v Mass. and was thrown out as an argument:

    “Assuming that medical experts could have been found who would have testified in support of these propositions, and that it had become the duty of the judge, in accordance with the law as stated in Com. v. Anthes, 5 Gray, 185, to instruct the jury as to whether or not the statute is constitutional, he would have been obliged to consider the evidence in connection with facts of common knowledge, which the court will always regard in passing upon the constitutionality of a statute. He would have considered this testimony of experts in connection with the facts that for nearly a century most of the members of the medical profession [197 U.S. 11, 24] have regarded vaccination, repeated after intervals, as a preventive of smallpox; that, while they have recognized the possibility of injury to an individual from carelessness in the performance of it, or even in a conceivable case without carelessness, they generally have considered the risk of such an injury too small to be seriously weighed as against the benefits coming from the discreet and proper use of the preventive; and that not only the medical profession and the people generally have for a long time entertained these opinions, but legislatures and courts have acted upon them with general unanimity. If the defendant had been permitted to introduce such expert testimony as he had in support of these several propositions, it could not have changed the result. It would not have justified the court in holding that the legislature had transcended its power in enacting this statute on their judgment of what the welfare of the people demands.”

    The court cautioned that it would only be justified in curbing police power with vaccination when it was applied in an arbitrary way, as occurred in Wong Wai v Williamson. Perhaps chipping away at the list is food for thought:

    Hep B – a child with the actual disease is allowed in school but someone not vaccinated for it is not. Quarantine doesn’t even apply in that case so it is clearly not a public health risk that justifies losing the right to a public education.

    Titers – they are the standard for determining antibodies. If a child demonstrates titers, they meet immunization requirements. Otherwise the whole concept of vaccines is void.

  12. Titers are just lab results. They don’t guarantee immunity. Just like I wouldn’t trust their MFTHR testing as the litmus test, I don’t want Titers as a condition for opt out. The ingredients in vaccines alone suffice for reason, personally. Beyond that, I am not interested in the state deciding which biotech du jour us required for my health care options. Exemptions shouldn’t even be required to begin with. Medical records are not the school or state’s business.

  13. Also, the small pox vaccine is irrelevant to the circumstances today. And it was a temporary mandate for a single disease during an actual outbreak.
    But then I am not a lawyer or attorney. Having to deal with these ludicrous arguments that fly in the face of logic and common sense, would put me over the edge. It already does. LOL

  14. I hope that Donald Trump is the Prez and he appoints some conservative Supreme Court justices before this case makes it to US Supreme court. If that happens, we win. If Hills is Prez and appoints liberal justices, we will lose in US Supreme court.

  15. People cannot be forced to do anything, let alone anything that is harmful. Know the law or you don’t have any rights. Instead of using the fictional, defacto legal system, why not file a claim for trespass against wrongdoers in the lawful, dejure court of record, proceeding under common law? This is where justice may be served. Common law, law of the land, is where true remedy may be found. Youtube Karl Lentz, common law explained.
    https://fourcornersdoctrine.wordpress.com/an-introduction-to-understanding/

  16. Laurie – I agree that this whole situation has become quite Orwellian, with the state exerting police power in a draconian and unnecessary way. But we all have been duped by the “boiling frog scenario” (they have been setting us up for decades without us realizing). The problem is that most of the issues raised in this injunction have been raised in lawsuits before and lost (religious freedom, vaccine safety, 1st ammendment, 14th ammendment). We need to think outside the box with these vaccine lawsuits, and the only cases I’ve read that have won is arbitrariness in the law.

    There is a precedence about titers with a New Jersey law called “Holly’s Law”. One of the defendants in this SB277 case has an issue with titers not being accepted. Ironically, it is accepted for adult employment. For many people that would chip away some of the teeth of this law.

    Doing the same thing over and over, but expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

  17. In response to Laura Sanders comment “Sorry correction- I’m relatively sure that the Small Pox vaccine, which was mandated over a century ago was not limited to children”
    I was just doing some research this morning on the original Mass Law chapter 75, section 137. It was actually the exact opposite. The Cambridge Mass ordinance that the Jacobson vs Mass case was about, actually excluded children. I think it was later amended to to include children but allowed for medical exemptions. I will include the link where I copied this from. State Vaccine Laws: http://tinyurl.com/h5go79t

    One of the early and most prevalent cases regarding vaccines involved a question over compulsory vaccination against smallpox.[34] The commonwealth of Massachusetts statute provided that “the board of health of a city or town, if, in its opinion, it is necessary for the public health or safety, shall require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants thereof, and shall provide them with the means of free vaccination. Whoever, being over twenty-one years of age and not under guardianship, refuses or neglects to comply with such requirement shall forfeit $5.” Proceeding under this statute, the city of Cambridge adopted the following regulation in 1902: “Whereas, smallpox has been prevalent to some extent in the city of Cambridge, and still continues to increase; and whereas it is necessary for the speedy extermination of the disease that all persons not protected by vaccination should be vaccinated; and whereas, in the opinion of the board, the public health and safety require the vaccination or revaccination of all the inhabitants of Cambridge; be it ordered that all the inhabitants habitants of the city who have not successfully vaccinated since March 1st, 1897, be vaccinated or revaccinated.”

  18. Can any lawyers comment on the authority and purview of scientific claims within the justice system? How and why are they afforded more judicial authority than any other epistemological system (religions, etc)? And to the extent that they are afforded such on the grounds of supposed empirical grounding, how is it that the courts can divorce themselves from the evidentiary particulars of such claims and fall back on apparent appeals to authority and consensus?

    @Accountable, I agree that cases need to take into account what avenues of argument are viable. That said, the quote you provide seems to say, in essence, that it is not the place of the courts to challenge things deliberated and acted on by the legislature. What then, rhetorically, is the purpose of the courts?

  19. What a shame the brief arguments were watered down and resulted in a failed first attempt. I recognised early on that there was something not quite right? about the canary party, unsubbing from their fb page and notifications years ago. I am glad the attorneys are taking other direction now. I don’t expect that if the canary party was that heavily influencing the process from the get go, that they will now willingly take a back seat. They need to be held accountable. I am glad Mr. Bolin you have done exactly that by calling them out. Directly asking who they represent is a great starting point because I beleive they are a front for some larger entity, coming in at ground level, deceitfully presenting to support a needing community but when push comes to shove … not.

  20. The improved re-filing of the case with the push to show the flaws in vaccines has just become even more important than before in light of the CDC’s proposed new policy that according to one possibly fearp0rn site/interpretation would seemingly give them authority to forcibly quarantine people, even those not sick and hold them indefinitely until they acquiesce to whatever vaccines they feel justified and if they don’t acquiesce – vax them anyway.

    Here is the direct link to the proposed policy (which seems spectacularly open to exploitation and corrupt abuse and generally horrible) https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/08/15/2016-18103/control-of-communicable-diseases#h-12 They are inviting public comments until October 2016

  21. Felix: Have you forgotten that it was Scalia who wrote the majority decision in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth which slammed the door for all time on all civil remedies for vaccine injuries? The NCVIA had left the door slightly ajar. And have you forgotten that it was two of the liberal justices (Ginsburg and Sotomayor- Kagan recused herself) who were on our side? Neither the Right nor the Left have any credibility regarding defending our rights; both have been bought by the highest bidder As for Trump, he cares about only himself, and would be just as big a disaster as Hillary. We have no choice in November. Johnson is pro mandate, and Stein a lightweight. I’m voting for nobody.

  22. Stan K – I agree with your implied opinion that the court failed its duty with the statement that “the wisdom of the Legislature’s decision is not for this Court to decide”. The function of the court is as a checks & balance for the inevitable abuse of police power by the legislature.

    In fact Justice Harlan addressed this in Jacobsen v Mass:
    “Before closing this opinion we deem it appropriate, in order to prevent misapprehension as to our views, to observe-perhaps to repeat a thought already sufficiently expressed, namely-that the police power of a state, whether exercised directly by the legislature, or by a local body acting under its authority, may be exerted in such circumstances, or by regulations so arbitrary and oppressive in particular cases, as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent wrong and oppression…’All laws,’ this court has said, ‘should receive a sensible construction. General terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence.”

    That is why I keep hounding on developing a lawsuit that addresses the arbitrary issues in SB277.

  23. Gary,

    Trump is against mandatory vaccines. He has an autistic, vaccine injured child. As Governor, Trumps VP has also opposed mandatory vaccines. Hillary has often pushed pro vaccine propaganda (and takes donations from big pharma. As Governor, Hillary’s VP pushed for mandatory vaccines. It is no coincidence that Merck was located in the same state Kayne was Governor when he was pushing for those mandatory vaccines. If this case hits the supreme court, and Trump has appointed justices, the case will go our way. At least with Trump there is a good chance of winning. With Hillary appointed justices, you might as not even try the case in US supreme court.

  24. If we can’t win this is there any way to change the decision that the vaccine manufacturers are exempt from liability? Or that we can have our own no vax necessary schools to educate our children. Or that insurance companies can not give doctors bonuses for vaccinating more children. The idea that the manufacturers will benefit via government forced mandates is sickening. Another concern of mine is the idea that we have people coming and going from overseas and bringing these so called deadly diseases here. Why is it my job to vaccinate my children to lesson their risk from something the travelers are bringing back with them? I “friended” senator Pan and it just looks hopeless from his viewpoint. Our arguments make sense but we don’t have the majority of society on our side. Add in the kick backs from the drug companies and it is even more dismal. Trying to keep the faith. This battle is so divisive and evil when looking from the pro vax side.

  25. Where are the funds coming from for the new lawsuit? I know that there was (and still is) a GoFundMe page for the original lawsuit (or perhaps it was for a lawsuit that never got off the ground, I’m not sure). The name on that GoFundMe account is Kristen Hundley. Was that a legit campaign? Or are the donations that were made to that account wasted money?

    If that was not a legit funding campaign, is there another “for reals official” way to donate to the lawsuit?

  26. Now that Trump is the Prez-elect, I believe that once he puts a few more conservative judges on the Supreme court, SB277 would go down in flames if a lawsuit ever reached SCOTUS. Wait until the SCOTUS tilts in our favor

  27. Felix: Are you unaware of Bruesewitz v. Wyeth? Justice denied, with the majority opinion written by Scalia. It is madness to think that conservative Supreme Court justices are our allies in this fight. They are not. They are our enemies. As are the executive branch and Congress. Congress stumbles forward, doing almost nothing of any value, and the executive branch grows ever more monolithic while hiding in the shadows, filled with Ivy-League children of privilege who think they know more than we peons. So far it seems Trump is surrounding himself with political hacks, which is to be expected. We’re going to have to fight in the trenches from now on; expecting Washington to mend the error of its ways is sheer folly. Those of us in the battle for medical freedom come from the full spectrum of political belief, and we must work together or we’re screwed.

  28. Felix: I am hopeful, God knows, but I’m well aware of how things work in Washington. Fifty three years, one week from today, of developing cynicism since our own government assassinated our beloved president, then lied about it, have made me question everything. Dr. Wakefield deserves the Nobel Prize, or Presidential Medal of Freedom, or something like that, for all the good work he has done in his life, especially since coming to Austin. If Trump cleans up the rot in public health policy he will be a hero to me for all time, despite my differences with his politics.

Leave a Reply