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….
As the SB 277 lawsuit clearly points out…
Little Charity Dean, for whatever motive, exceeded her authority, giving herself the power over REAL doctors, making REAL TIME decisions, keeping at-risk children safe. Federal Law 42 USC 1983 is the Statute used in the SB 277 lawsuit to combat Charity’s ilk.
Federal Law 42 USC 1983 basically says that “any government employee can be sued for exceeding their authority…” Specific 42 USC 1983 language is just below:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.
What disappoints me about the SB 277 lawsuit is that the attorneys on the side of “Good” in this fight against “Evil,” were, in this instance, too nice. What?
Yes, I think they were. Why? There are two separate references in Federal Law about what are known as “Color of Authority” issues. One of them is, of course, 42 USC 1983 – the CIVIL remedy. Why didn’t our people mention the other reference – the CRIMINAL remedy 18 USC 242?
18 USC 242 is VERY specific. It says:
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Just below is a quote from the US Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding 18 USC 242 activity. DOJ is the investigating and prosecuting entity for 18 USC 242.
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
Think about that statement above. Ask “How does this apply to what Charity Dean was doing, and attempting to do?” Good question. Charity Dean claimed to have a “Medical Exemption Criteria” she was going to use to examine submitted “Medical Exemptions.” Where did she get it? From a lobbyist friend? And what authority did Charity Dean have to set herself up as the decider?
What “Medical Exemption” Criteria Would Charity Dean Use?
Why is that question important? Because the State Health Department system, including the counties, are DEPENDENT on the increase of vaccine percentages for income…
Did you want me to repeat that?
In short, to me, the Charity Deans of California only CLAIM to be acting for the health of the populace. In reality, they are the Vaccine Sales Force for the vaccine manufacturers. They have completely abrogated any health responsibility for vaccines and their deadly effects.
Charity Dean, and her ilk, statewide, couldn’t care less if a huge batch of Made-in-China toxic death pus, was shipped here full of anthrax. They’d insist that it be IMMEDIATELY injected in California’s innocent children. They have no system in place to test vaccine batches, nor, I think, do they want one. It would interfere with the implementation of their bonus payment system…
I am not joking…
So, What did Charity’s Lawyers come up with?
Just below was their first statement:
“The law setting forth the required content of a medical exemption has existed since 1961. Plaintiffs’ request to enjoin school officials from scrutinizing and rejecting a medical exemption not meeting statutory requirements is unwarranted. This would prevent school officials from rejecting a medical exemption written by a nurse practitioner rather than a licensed physician, or a medical exemption omitting to state the vaccine from which a child is being exempted. In either instance, the medical exemption would not meet statutory requirements.”
Go ahead and snicker… No where does the lawsuit mention any concern about any of this. That isn’t what Charity was looking for, remember? She was talking about “suspicious exemptions…”
The claim that the Plaintiffs lack standing to sue…
“To the extent Plaintiffs’ Motion seeks to enjoin Defendants from rejecting a medical exemption otherwise meeting statutory requirements on grounds that the medical basis for granting it is insufficient, Plaintiffs lack standing to seek a preliminary injunction against the County of Santa Barbara. No Santa Barbara County resident Plaintiff has a medical exemption. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ evidence establishes that the County of Santa Barbara does not review medical exemptions to determine whether or not they are warranted medically. In addition, no Santa Barbara County resident Plaintiff alleges that Santa Barbara County has taken action or intends to take action that threatens any Santa Barbara County parent or child with harm. Finally, Plaintiffs’ suit establishes no grounds to enjoin the County of Santa Barbara from reviewing medical exemptions provided by schools with all personally identifiable information redacted. The Motion should be denied as against County of Santa Barbara.”
“Santa Barbara County’s Public Health Department (“SBCPHD”) recently initiated its Medical Exemption Pilot Program (“MEPP”). MEPP provides for SBPHD to review MEs filed with Santa Barbara County (“County”) schools to ensure that they contain five required statutory elements. These are: 1) issuance by a Doctor of Medicine or Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine; 2) a statement that the physical condition or medical circumstances of the child are such that the required immunization(s) is not considered safe; 3) identification of the vaccine(s) from which the child is exempted; 4) a statement of whether the medical exemption is permanent or temporary; and 5), if the medical exemption for a vaccine is temporary, a date that the temporary exemption expires. MEPP requires that schools redact all personally identifiable information from MEs prior to transmission to SBCPHD. ARGUMENT I. PLAINTIFFS LACK STANDING TO SUE THE COUNTY. Article III of the United States Constitution limits the judicial power of the United States to the resolution of “Cases” and “Controversies.” Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 492 (2009). This fundamental limitation on judicial power is reflected in the doctrine of standing. Id. at 493. To seek injunctive relief, the doctrine of standing requires that a plaintiff “show that he is under threat of suffering ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendants; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.” Id. SBCPHD is a County department. Therefore, the only Plaintiffs who could be affected by any SBCPHD action are Ms. Sunukjian and A.L.S. and Dr. Mackenzie and G.J.M. Plaintiffs submitted no declaration from Dr. Mackenzie establishing that he or his son are under any actual or imminent threat of suffering any County caused injury. Dr. Mackenzie’s unsworn allegations in the First Amended Complaint are not evidence and therefore do not support standing at the preliminary injunction stage. Doe v. National Board of Medical Examiners, 199 F.3d 146, 152-153 (3rd Cir. 1999). Plaintiffs did submit Ms. Sunukjian’s declaration. She admits that she has not obtained a medical exemption for her daughter. Sunukjian Decl., ¶ 10. Thus, she cannot have filed an exemption with her daughter’s school; the school cannot have transmitted an exemption to the County.
Of course, Charity got sued BECAUSE the Santa Barbara Health Department has no authority to require any of this…
Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen