A Voice for Choice, Inc. is a named plaintiff in the Love vs. State of California lawsuit which questions the constitutionality of SB277.
ACTION TO TAKE: Sign up for AVFC’s newsletter for updates. Donations in support of the lawsuit are welcomed.
The suit was filed on April 4, 2017 in the Placer County Superior Court of the State of California. It was dismissed by the judge on November 11, 2017. An Appeal was filed on June 19, 2018 in the Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District.
Love vs. California case documents filed thus far in the Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District for this lawsuit are as follows (click to view document):
Appellant (Plaintiff) documents filed:
Respondent (Defendant) documents filed:
Love vs. California case documents previously filed in Placer County Superior Court of the State of California, April 2017 (click to view document):
Plaintiff documents filed:
Defendant documents filed:
Judge’s documents filed:
Judge’s Tentative Ruling to postpone Ruling on Motion to Dismiss – Filed 2017-6-19
Judge’s Tentative Ruling Granting Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss – Filed 2017-8-15
Judge’s Final Order of Dismissal – Filed 2017-11-2
A Voice for Choice’s Comment on the dismissal: No trial-court judge seems to want to touch this issue. Perhaps they fear controversy or being recalled. Here, with retrospect it seems clear: Wachob put off the first hearing so he could carefully draft this document. He wrote a lengthy ruling – one that is out of character for him. And he concluded by saying, “I won’t even grant them leave to amend” — in other words, “get out of my court.”
The ruling had a few oddities:
He began by citing federal precedent. Totally inapt to our state-court causes of actions, which we went out of the way to limit this suit to. Again, the safe move by the judge, but inapplicable.
In the privacy piece, he cited our case law, and seemed to agree with it. But he then diverged, citing a case that is not as broad as he claimed. At the bottom of page 5, he actually wrote that if the state *asserts* it has an interest in safeguarding health, then rational basis is the proper test. That’s simply not true, and is way too broad a statement.
On the top of page 6, he cited a case requiring AIDS testing for prostitutes as being relevant here. Think about that. That case involved prostitutes who are caught violating the law.
The end of the first paragraph on page 6 is non-sequitur.
It is odd and conclusory for him to say disclosing that a child is medically exempt somehow furthers the state’s interest in safeguarding public health. How?
Courts continue to cite the French v. Davidson case. No modern court would ever insert such circular logic into a holding. “It doesn’t infringe on the right to attend school as long as the child does whatever the government says.” That’s the definition of an infringement! “You can vote if you pay a poll tax.” (Plainly unconstitutional).
Another overbroad statement appears at the bottom of page 6: the notion that all cases involving health and safety are subject to rational basis? Simply untrue. We cited several cases where courts applies stricter scrutiny in the context of healthcare!
On the top of page 7, he discusses homeschooling and narrowly tailored in the same breath.
He confused the unconstitutional-conditions argument, saying the right to refuse immunization is the right relinquished. I’m pretty sure we argued many times it was the right to parent, the right to privacy, and the right to refuse treatment.
Love vs. California case documents previously filed in the Central Federal Court of California, November 2016 (click to view document):
Plaintiff documents filed:
Plaintiff Litigation Cover Sheet – Filed 2016-11-21
Plaintiff Litigation Complaint – Filed 2016-11-21
Plaintiff Litigation Summons – All Defendants – Filed 2016-11-21
Plaintiff Litigation Preliminary Injunction – Filed 2016-12-8 (Key Case Summary)
Plaintiff Proposed Order – Filed 2016-12-08
Plaintiff Barrow Affidavit – Filed 2016-12-08
Plaintiff Sargent Affidavit – Filed 2016-12-08
Plaintiff Torrey-Love Affidavit – Filed 2016-12-08
Plaintiff Affidavit Hildebrand – Filed 2016-12-22
Plaintiff Opposition to Motion to Dismiss – Filed 2016-12-22
A Voice For Choice, Inc. Releases A Statement Regarding New Lawsuit Filed to Challenge California’s Extensive Vaccine Mandates. First Suit to Focus on Well-Established Constitutional Principles – December 12, 2016
A Voice For Choice, Inc. Releases Statement Regarding Lawsuit Filed to Challenge California’s Extensive Vaccine Mandates Define Greater Good? Setting precedent against forced sterilization and vaccine mandates – December 22, 2016
Defendants documents filed:
Defendants Opposition to Preliminary Injunction – Filed 2016-12-30
Defendants Opposition to Injunction – Filed 2016-12-22
Defendants Motion to Dismiss – Filed 2016-12-15
Defendants Memorandum of P&As – Filed 2016-12-15
Defendants Proposed Order – Filed 2016-12-15
Defendants Request for Judicial Notice – Filed 2016-12-15
Defendants Request for Judicial Notice Exhibit 1 – Filed 2016-12-15
Defendants Request for Judicial Notice Exhibit 2 – Filed 2016-12-15
Defendants Request for Judicial Notice Exhibit 3 – Filed 2016-12-15
Defendants Request for Judicial Notice Exhibit 4 – Filed 2016-12-15
Defendants Request for Judicial Notice Exhibit 5 – Filed 2016-12-15
Judge’s documents filed:
Judge’s Order Granting Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss – Filed 01-12-2017
A Voice for Choice’s Comment on the dismissal: The federal judge basically punted. She said in effect, that because the right to an education is a state constitutional right, she wanted to defer to state courts when it comes to enforcing that right. While we think that is an odd outcome, since the state constitutional right to an education is so clearly entwined here with the federal medical-autonomy and parental-discretion rights, we believe the ruling vindicates us, and that and we will be eventually vindicated. This federal district court joined other federal district courts in indicating that overburdensome vaccine requirements infringe on the right to a public education, which although not recognized federally, is recognized in California.
A Voice For Choice, Inc. is watching a number of other lawsuits in CA and nationally, that align with our mission. Each of these lawsuits is described below. Where the lawsuits are crowdfunding, we highly recommend you to personally research the case and the lawyers involved and make your own informed decision whether to donate:
Lawsuit against SB277 sponsored by Revolt.Revoke.Restore, represented by T. Matthew Phillips/James Long (www.revoltrevokerestore.com/). A suit was filed on April 22nd, 2016 in the LA District Courts. It was dismissed, and was appealed, and received a ruling against the appeal.
Action To Take: None – DO NOT donate. There is much controversy over this lawsuit and the brief that was filed. The first lawyer (T. Matthew Phillips) in this case is extremely unprofessional and profane in his postings on social media. The brief that was filed is also unprofessional. At best this case is just bad judgement and at worst it is controlled opposition.
Lawsuit against SB277 based on RICO, put forward by Travis Middleton (https://www.gofundme.com/2abvdy58?ssid=843441728&pos=1). A suit was filed on July 15, 2016 in the LA District Courts. The Court Denied the motion recuse Judge Wilson, so Judge Wilson will be ruling on the magistrate’s recommendations. The defendants will be dismissed or the case will be dismissed without prejudice. No appeal was filed due to financial constraints.
Action To Take: None
Lawsuit against SB277 sponsored by Education4All Foundation and Kristen Hundley (OKOC), was represented by Jim Turner and Robert Moxley (www.gofundme.com/sb277lawsuit). A suit was filed on July 1st 2016 in the San Diego Federal Courts, but was dismissed after the Injunction failed due to disagreements between plaintiffs and lawyers.
Action To Take: Watch. This is likely to return in the future as a different, but similar case. The legal team or Robert Moxley and Jim Turner is a strong team that AVFC supports.
Lawsuit UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al. v. MERCK & CO represented by Constantine Cannon, LLP, Keller Grover LLP, Meredith Cohen Greenfogel & Skirnick, PC, Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP, Berger & Montague PA, United States Department of Justice (www.plainsite.org/dockets/mmpl79tu/pennsylvania-eastern-district-court/united-states-of-america-et-al-v-merck). Filed in 2010. Ongoing.
Action To Take: Watch.
Hazlehurst v. The Jackson Clinic represented by Bryan Smith and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., both of Morgan & Morgan. Filed in 2016. Ongoing. More details: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cdc-blocks-testimony-of-vaccine-whistleblower-says-world-mercury-project-300347376.html
Action To Take: Watch.