There are Two Main Arguments Missing…
Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
Something happened during the actual Preliminary Hearing August 12th, 2016 that made me step back and take a hard look at what was going on behind the scenes in the SB 277 litigation organizational team. I’ve been turning over rocks ever since looking for snakes – and I found some.
Since we lost the bid for the Preliminary Injunction I have been pushing even harder for an explanation of the loss – a real explanation of what REALLY happened. More, I want to know what is going to happen next.
As everyone knows I am not particularly nice (sometimes) – and I don’t let up, pointing out to those I am asking questions of how many readers, and who those readers are, that rely on me for information.
Yes, I’m a bully when it comes to demanding answers. Why? People depend on me for the truth.
I am getting answers from my inquiries – and you aren’t going to like what I am finding out. I, Tim Bolen, certainly didn’t like what I found.
In short – there are serious problems in the organizational teams. This case could be DOOMED unless we fix the problems immediately. I’ll be blunt – Going forward with an Appeal, at this point, is a BAD idea, and with the loss we could expect, would set up EVERY other State for mandatory vaccines.
There is a huge fight going on behind the scenes. The Canary Party is trying to take over control of the case using their usual “whisper campaign” to try to disparage Jim Turner and Bob Moxley and put their own bird-brained team in charge of the lawsuit. I suspect they are contacting the Plaintiffs directly, right now, trying to get them to sign up with them.
The Canaries want to take over the case immediately and file an Appeal on the arguments in the existing case. Turner and Moxley want to Amend the case back to its original much better Aaron Siri design (see below), and then refile a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction before anything else.
The whisper campaign claims that Turner and Moxley screwed up. They certainly DID NOT. The Canary Party (E4A) nitwits did.
I agree with Turner and Moxley. I’ll show you why just below.
This case was in the works for a LONG TIME. Attorneys came to meetings in California from all over the US to put together a plan. I kept waiting for something to happen – to develop and get it started.
After much deliberation the original lead attorney was supposed to be Aaron Siri from New York, with Bob Moxley from Wyoming backing him up. Three minor attorneys would assist with writing chores. You’ll see their information below.
Both Siri and Moxley (seasoned and successful litigators) were paid, ahead of time, to write up the case and case strategies to guide the lawsuit. They both did.
Siri, for instance, wrote one hundred sixty-six (166) pages – focusing on “the dangers of vaccines“ as the primary reason why mandates could not happen, with “the right of education as a secondary approach.” I have a copy of that.
Siri told the organizers how much money it would take to litigate and those organizers promised they would provide that amount.
A potential “funder‘ was flown to meet with Siri in New York, supposedly bringing a check . The “funder” showed up – but NO check. Siri basically said “no operating money no lead attorney.” Can’t say as I blame him.
So, with only about a month to go before the case HAD TO BE FILED, there was no lead attorney.
Finding a Lead Attorney…
The organizing committee had three members (minor attorneys) that eventually became what I call “the minor cooks in the kitchen.” So, you ask, “why didn’t one of them become lead attorney?” The answer to that is easy – none of them were, or are, qualified to be lead attorney and would certainly not inspire confidence in the Plaintiffs.
Who were they and why couldn’t they make the cut?
The first was Mary Holland from NYC law School. She, to me, had TWO major strikes against her (1) She has NEVER tried a case in any Court, she is, in actuality, a part time law instructor at a City (Community) college, and (2) she is totally connected, joined-at-the-hip as it were, with the Canary Party.
The second was Kim Mack Rosenberg from New York. She, also had two major strikes (1) I couldn’t find where she had ever been lead attorney in any case, anywhere. The New York law firm she had been with had let her go, and (2) she, also, is totally connected, joined-at-the-hip as it were, with the Canary Party. In fact her Linked-In account showed she was CURRENTLY EMPLOYED by the Canary Party.
The third was Janet Nalbandyan from California. This one had even MORE baggage. (1) Although she had changed jobs often in the last several years, she had no apparent experience in this kind of law. She now works for a Detroit based law firm, with an office in Los Angeles, that handles money-type legal affairs for auto manufacturers (2) Worse though, are those stories and videos tying Nalbandyan to the controversial organizing of final California Assembly SB 277 hearings.
Remember the scandal over the microphones being switched off and on for Allison Folmar? Remember that doll faced woman saying “we know that vaccines are safe and effective (sniff, sniff) we just want personal choice (whimper, whimper) to the committee? Yeah, THAT Janet Nalbandyan.
In short, in California these days, everyone remembers how the Canary Party screwed up the campaigns. So, virtually NO ONE is going to follow, or contribute to, something run by the Canaries – a sentiment I share. No wonder these three were hiding in the background. For sure, they had to find somebody to front the organization.
Enter Jim Turner…
A few weeks before the filing absolutely had to be made, one way or another, the organizers contacted Jim Turner to come in as lead attorney.
Jim asked several people, including me, what we thought about him taking over. I told him that the idea of a real lawsuit using Siri and Moxley’s legal concepts was a good one – but that the Canary involvement was fraught with problems – that if Canary was involved at a high level expect to be on the losing side at some critical point – for they always seem to be able to “seize defeat from the jaws of victory…”
My advice – “make certain you, Jim Turner, have control of the case and dilute the Canary influence immediately.”
Jim took the case. To head off the Canaries he brought in three major non-profits with REAL memberships, as Plaintiffs.
The case writings were supposed to be complete, the organizers tell Jim, and all he has to do, at this point, is to get the case started. Who was writing the case words? The three women listed above, and they were SUPPOSED TO BE using Siri and Moxley’s script. .
Fly in the Ointment…
The case, Jim was told, is written around Siri’s and Moxley’s legal briefs. But, as it turns out – it hadn’t been – at least two VERY IMPORTANT (Primary) legal issues had been left out. The case had been adjusted to fit the opinions of the Canary Party.
Siri and Moxely’s original complaint was about “how dangerous vaccines actually were, and are,” – with startling detail. The basic premise was that “you cannot mandate something this dangerous.”
The Canary attorneys, before bringing in Turner, ten days before the deadline, removed ALL references to Moxley and Siri’s brilliant legal arguments and handed Turner a watered down argument based on the secondary argument that “children have right to an education…” ignoring the dangers of vaccines, entirely, as the primary argument.
Turner went forward because, as any attorney knows, you can always add an Amended Complaint, but the important thing was to get started.
The Judge was very explicit in the Preliminary Injunction Hearing that he thought the Canary argument unpersuasive without the facts about vaccines, and denied the Preliminary Injunction.
So, What, and how, did this happen?
I’ll break the problem down into components:
(1) Too many cooks in the kitchen…
(2) Not enough time for the REAL ATTORNEYs to prepare. The case organizers waited too long to bring in Jim Turner.
(3) Not enough time for the REAL ATTORNEYS to take charge of the case and get it on the right track. Turner came in on June 20th, 2016 taking over for a case that had to be filed by July 1st 2016 – in ten days. Turner had to use an already prepared legal argument.
(4) Two MAJOR missing legal arguments.
(5) Constant interference from the minor cooks in the kitchen.
(6) The original case organizers ignored the advice of their primary consultants about the strategies in the case.
(7) People who have no business interfering are VERY MUCH interfering. There is bird shit all over the kitchen.
So, Where Are We?
Behind the scenes the excrement is hitting the fan. Why? Because the Canary Party connivers want to go forward with a useless Appeal of their half-baked “children have right to an education…” legal claim.
The competent and experienced Lead Attorneys are saying “NO – we first need to Amend the case to include the original material, and re-file AGAIN for a Preliminary Injunction.”
Going forward and doing something incredibly stupid without examining consequences is “THE HALLMARK” of the Canary Party. I think it is their Mission Statement (sarcasm intended).
But, I suspect, the Canaries are contacting all of the individual Plaintiffs trying to get them to come with them to Appeal.
I Knew the Canaries were there in the organizational mix before I recommended the case to my readers. Friends of mine said it was time to mend fences and build bridges, that they, the Canaries, should be given a chance…
OK, the Canaries were given a chance – and they reverted to form just like I thought they would, dropping bird shit, as it were, all over the organizational table.
My recommendations to the legal team?
(1) Drop Education 4 All (E4A) from the Plaintiff list completely. There are REAL Education groups in California, with thousands of REAL members, who, unlike the self-serving Canary Party, are REALLY interested in the issues. E4A has only two members we can see.
The Nevada E4A corporation documents show only two people – someone named Christopher J. Jones as President (I can’t find this person) and Rebecca Estepp as Secretary.
Estepp is the one who issues press Releases for E4A. You’ve seen them. She uses, it appears, the Canary Party distribution network for those releases. Notice that EVERY Press Release mentions ONLY Canary Party attorney Kim Mack Rosenberg in those releases – NEVER mentioning the lead attorneys Turner and Moxley.
These people are nothing but trouble.
(2) Amend the Complaint and start over – get the case back to where it was before the bird-brains crapped all over it.
What happened in the Preliminary Injunction Hearing that changed my investigation focus?
After the hearing in San Diego I wrote an article called “SB 277 Lawsuit – We’re just Waiting…” In it I pointed out what looked to me like two incidents of SABOTAGE of the legal team’s efforts. Below, is an excerpt of what I found. After this I kept investigating and I found a snake pit. Let’s look at what I found…
Something strange was going on – in fact, TWO strange things.
Strange thing number one – Apparently there are some people interfering with our attorneys’ ability to manage the case – and it is severe. I received, I think, five separate reports of someone, an aggressive woman (NOT part of the legal team) at the Hearing, who was CONSTANTLY handing notes forward, obviously trying to distract our team’s efforts to answer the Judge’s questions. I HOPE, for our sakes, that that person didn’t upset the Judge against us.
Attorneys prepare days ahead of time for Judge’s questions, discussing answers, and points, with their colleagues, so as to make a smooth presentation. They DO NOT need distraction…
I have been investigating who that person was, and at this point I can say “She was not invited to participate….” I have questioned this person via email, about what she was up to, who she represented, and, so far, have not received an answer.
Don’t worry – I’ll find the answer one way or another.
Well, I DID find out who that person handing out notes was.
Normally, if there is a person in the courtroom interfering with the process, the Federal Police, after a subtle signal from the Judge, grab the offender by the hair and ankles, pound them a few times with a nightstick or truncheon, and drag their now-a-prisoner ass out into the hallway for transportation to the looney-bin office for further assignment.
That person turned out to be Janet Nalbandyan of SB277 legislation hearing fame (infamy?).
“What the hell was SHE doing there?” was my loud and persistent question, and the lead attorneys were reluctant to respond.
But I am persistent, and the largest, most favorable publication of the SB 277 lawsuit. Someone, not one of the attorneys, told me that “Janet thinks she is running the SB 277 case… and she wants to stay in the background…”
There was an easy way to find out – I sent Janet an email with my concerns. Here it is…
After you showed up in the Preliminary Injunction Hearing courtroom last Friday, and as my source tells me, began passing notes to Kim Mack Rosenberg, distracting the attorneys during their presentation to the Judge, you have my full attention. I hope you didn’t damage the case…
So, I’ll be blunt. Who is your client here? Where is all the money you are handing out coming from? What is your motivation?
Who, specifically, is E4A? Every name… Who is Christopher J. Jones? Where do I find him?
I have heard that you got your “seed money” from Mark Blaxill? Is this true?
Your days of hiding in the background, pulling strings, are over Janet. One way or another.
Narbandyan did not respond to me DIRECTLY – but, as you can imagine, I started to get calls from others – and my investigation went into high gear. You can see the results of my inquiries all throughout this article.
What happened right after the Preliminary Injunction Hearing that got my attention?
Just below, another excerpt from the “SB 277 Lawsuit – We’re just Waiting…” article is self-explanatory.
Strange thing number two – Several hours after the hearing three of the attorneys met with the Plaintiffs and other interested parties to talk about the Hearing events. A video was made, and it aired on Periscope, and invited “comments.” The readily visible “comments” took up most of the left side of the screen, and at 12:47 into the video one of the attorneys was offered a “blow job.” Just a little further the REALLY NASTY COMMENTS started.
So, how did those “comments” appear so fast. The “skeptics” had no notification of the video…
It took a while to get the video taken down.
Last (almost) but not least…
There was one more excerpt that is important:
Rife with rumors – I’ve been getting bits and pieces of a story telling me that there is a group, acting behind the scenes, to disrupt the case, and our attorney’s management of it. That wouldn’t surprise me a bit. If any of you have anything to contribute in that scene, please get a hold of me.
I do have, based on the information I am gathering, a working theorem of what’s happening, and I think, so do the attorneys.
i suspect that some strong language has been, and is being, used, this last week, in attorney communication networks.
Yup, that was/is happening.
Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen