Federal Court Used MY Arguments to Block Draconian Law AB2098
I am sure that lawyers figured it out without me - but my points were echoed by the judge
Good news! A California court issued a preliminary injunction, blocking enforcement of California’s AB2098 law, passed to muzzle doctors and prevent them from warning their patients about the dangers of COVID-19 vaccines.
Thank you to hero plaintiffs Tracy Beth Hoeg, Aaron Kheriaty, and Children’s Health Defense for undertaking this expensive litigation and presenting incredibly well-worded arguments that led to the California Eastern District federal court agreeing with plaintiffs and blocking this ridiculous law from being enforced across California.
In October, I posted my opinion about this law and how it could be defeated:
Before I proceed, let me state that I am sure the above Substack post played NO role in the actual litigation and that no one of importance read it. What I wrote was relatively trivial and required only modest familiarity with First Amendment precedents, vagueness doctrine, past court rulings, and close reading of AB2098 itself.
Nevertheless, I am glad the court echoed some of my opinions and shut the law down with a preliminary injunction.
Below, I will highlight passages from my post and fragments of the court’s decision, so you can compare them.
The court also realized that the most important sentence of AB2098 is grammatically incorrect gibberish. (scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.) The law states:
“Misinformation” means false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.
The court realized that, besides being a bad policy, the law made no literal sense and was a grammatical mess.
During the hearings, the state of California’s attorneys attempted to essentially rewrite the law by offering an interpretation that does not follow the text of the law.
The court wisely refused, suggesting that if the law needs a major rewrite, then the legislature must write a new law that actually makes sense.
We all got lucky that a fool, a non-lawyer vaccine fanatic pediatrician Richard Pan of Sacramento, wrote AB2098. Richard Pan has terrible reviews as a doctor, and if I could grade his law-writing skills, I would rate him with zero stars out of 10.
We all got very lucky that AB2098 was so badly written.
I also hope that a Covid quack doctor Richard Pan will not be subject to any “pandemic amnesty.”
On tonight’s The Highwire, this year’s Davos was described as a funeral. We had to wait three years, but perhaps things are changing. JCVI UK announced covid jabs end Feb 12th. They may reintroduce them in the autumn. Are Gavin Newsom’s days in office coming to an end? Justin Trudeau? Australia now warning medical practitioners that they are at risk, if they do not inform their patients of all the possible adverse events they might experience post vaxx, when previously those same practitioners were warned by the same overlords to not spread misinformation about the covid jabs. Much of this change is due to the brave work of our covid warriors. Thank you Igor Chudhov for being one of our warriors💕
You are right to be pleased that the arguments you put forth ended up winning over the judge (though not specifically penned by you). I share that pleasure, and hope that the same arguments will cause the law to be struck down before the injunction ends.