SB 277 Litigation Stuff You Need To Know… And Things You Could Do That Would Help…

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen  

Yes, Senate Bill 277, the legislation passed in California to mandate Chinese-made-vaccines force-jammed into California’s innocent children was/is horrible.  Yes, the people behind SB 277 qualify as human scum.

Yes, the campaigns to stop, or reverse, SB 277 have been a not funny joke run by people who just do not know how to think things through before they act.

That was then – this is now…

The big kids have stepped onto the playground…

I watched the behind-the-scenes machinations of the people trying to figure out, not only the legal strategies that would work, but the logistics of getting a REAL lawsuit together to attack SB 277, with interest.  I could a write a book chapter on all that went on to get where we are right now.  Some of it would be humorous.

And, I am pleased with the outcome.  Why?  I’ve been around litigation for a long time.  Even under the best of circumstances it is difficult.  It’s like juggling burning torches.  Worse, is litigation involving interest groups like this SB 277 thing.  Why?  Obviously, the question comes up “where’s the money to conduct the lawsuit coming from?”  It’s not like you have a client with a fat checkbook.

So, when I see the results in a Draft copy of the lawsuit, and I know personally, the lead attorney, and I look behind him to see if the structure he needs is in place, then I can nod my head in agreement and say “this could/should work – let’s do it…”

So, to the big question…

Is the Canary Party/Health Choice Running This?

That question is what I get the most phone calls about.  I’ll answer it like this:

In the first campaign, trying to stop the legislature from passing the bill, the message carried by the bird-brains, with all other messages blocked, was “We know that vaccines are Safe and Effective (sniff, sniff), but we just want personal choice (whimper, whimper)…”

In this lawsuit, however, there is a clear description, carefully outlined, of the problems in California. This lawsuit was NOT written by bird-brains.

The second campaign, the Referendum, was so poorly run, no one knew where anything was, nor what to do with what they had gathered. There is still no accounting for what happened to the money gathered.

Does this lawsuit look disorganized? Nope, it is not. No bird-brains here.

In the third campaign, the Pan Recall, a structure was put together by the Canaries, and NOTHING was ever done with it.

This lawsuit was organized, structured, and activated with precision. No bird-brains here.

Does that answer your questions?

About this Judge in San Diego…

Federal Court Judge Dana M. Sabraw, according to Wikipedia:

Dana_Sabraw_Distrct_JudgeSabraw’s mother was born in Japan. His father was in the U.S. Army and was stationed in Japan during the Korean War when his parents met in 1954.[1] Sabraw was born in San Rafael, California in 1958, and received an A.A. fromAmerican River Junior College in 1978, a B.S. from San Diego State University in 1980, and a J.D. from the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law in 1985.

Sabraw was in private practice in San Diego, California from 1985 to 1989. He was in private practice in Santa Barbara, California from 1989 to 1995.

Sabraw was a judge on the North County Municipal Court, County of San Diego, California from 1995 to 1998. He was a judge on the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Diego, California from 1998 to 2003.

Sabraw is a federal judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Sabraw was nominated by President George W. Bush on May 1, 2003, to a new seat created by 116 Stat. 1758. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on September 25, 2003, and received his commission on September 26, 2003.

What Can YOU do to Help?

Organize.  This lawsuit isn’t the only thing we need to do.  For one thing, make sure that EVERY local media outlet in your area writes a story about this lawsuit.  THEN, make sure that EVERY legislator gets a similar copy.  Rub their noses in it…

We’ve just started the REAL campaign – the one we are playing to win.

Stay tuned…

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

7 thoughts on “SB 277 Litigation Stuff You Need To Know… And Things You Could Do That Would Help…”

  1. For a TRO, the attorneys submitting paperwork are doing so “Ex Parte,” meaning they do NOT, according to the rules, have to notify the other side first. The Judge has the power to decide whether or not he wants the other side present. In this case, as I expected he would, he wanted the other side there, and prepared. Also, the Judge has the power to demand more information than originally provided. That’s what he did.

    Get used to it. There are ALWAYS at least two sides in a lawsuit. One of them is going to lose… During the process, EVERYTHING will be contested.

  2. I suspect, since the schools are not in regular session, the Judge did not see the situation as justifying an emergency order without opposition present. However, once the other side is given a chance to be heard, I suspect the Judge will agree that there is the likelihood for irreparable harm and issue a restraining order.

  3. Arbitrariness of SB277 is the key to this lawsuit, and is supported by previous cases. There is arbitrariness in how this law is being enforced and who it applies to (doesn’t apply equally to all in like condition). Furthermore, it can be shown that since AB2109 increased vaccination rates, that the heavy handed SB277 is an arbitrary and unnecessary legislation.

    Abeel v Clark – The courts had not, however, given legislatures or local health authorities carte blanche in designing public health measures, nor had they said that such measures, simply because they had been duly adopted, were insulated from court scrutiny. Those tribunals that had sustained,for example, compulsory vaccination had usually made clear that such measures, like all other exercises of the police power that restrained individual liberty, needed justification and could be blocked if they smacked of arbitrariness or did not seem warranted by the facts.”

    Blue v. Beach. “There a group of parents had unsuccessfully challenged a Terre Haute mandatory school vaccination ordinance. “As a general proposition,” the Indiana court had said, “whatever laws or regulations are necessary to protect the public health and secure public comfort is a legislative question, and appropriate measures intended and calculated to accomplish these ends are not subject to judicial review.”‘ But this did not mean that public health measures were totally immune from judicial scrutiny. Indeed, the Indiana court had gone on to say that it was the right, nay the duty, of courts to inquire whether health measures that impaired personal liberties were in fact related to and appropriate to securing their purported object. A public health measure that could be shown to be truly arbitrary, the court had declared, should not be permitted to stand.”

    1-1-1988
    Of Medicine, Race, and American Law: The Bubonic Plague Outbreak of 1900

    Charles McClain
    Berkeley Law

  4. May 2, 2016 · by impact ethics · in Canadian Bioethics, Disability, Law & Policy, Petition, Public Health see and share Bob Martin GBS Survivor

  5. Martin – sorry for the confusion. But I’m not Charles McClain, who is a brilliant legal scholar. The quotes I used are from his article that I referenced since I used his exact verbiage. I wanted to make sure he received is due credit.

    If you want to see how an underprivileged group beat mandatory vaccinations laws, read the article. The Chinese won because they proved it was not justified, not applied equally in like condition, and was arbitrary.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.