RULING:
On Friday, June 7, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — Judges Ryan D. Nelson and Daniel P. Collins (Hawkins dissented) — VACATED and REMANDED (reversed and returned back to) the lower districts court’s ruling that California Educators for Medical Freedom and Health Freedom Defense Fund’a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Unified School District’s CV19 employee jab mandate was (1) moot and (2) barred by Jacobson v. Massachusetts.
WHAT DID IT FIND?
The lawsuit was not moot because “LAUSD's pattern of withdrawing and then reinstating its vaccination policies was enough to keep this case alive. The record supported a strong inference that LAUSD waited [to withdraw the mandate after it realized it was going to lose the appeal].”
The lower court improperly applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1905 ruling in Jacobson to grant LAUSD’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“MJOP”) and dismiss plaintiffs case because plaintiffs had properly plead — using the CDC’s own admissions — that the CV19 jab is not a “traditional vaxxine” that prevents transmission, but rather a medicine that (arguably) mitigates symptoms, severity, hospitalization, etc., Jacobson does not permit states to force citizens to take medicine and, thus, it could not have been used to bar the plaintiffs’ lawsuit.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
This is not a final ruling on the merits. This ruling does not say states cannot mandate CV19 jabs, or that CV19 jabs are not “traditional vaxxines.” This ruling simply states that, since plaintiffs alleged that CV19 jabs are not traditional vaxxines — and the court is required to presume these allegations are true at the MJOP stage — the lower court could not have applied Jacobson to the lawsuit in order to dismiss it.
HOW:
A MJOP is designed to decide cases before trial if the material (important) facts are not in dispute and a judgment on the merits can be entered merely by looking to the pleadings and any judicially noticed facts. It is similar to a Motion to Dismiss, but it is filed after the pleadings are closed.
In reviewing an MJOP, a court must take the plaintiffs’ allegations as true — even if there was “actual proof” they are “improbable”! — and grant the MJOP only if there are no material (important) unresolved facts, and the claims fail “as a matter of law.”
The CoA held that, taking CEMF and HFDF’s allegations as true (the jabs are not actual vaxxines but medicine) the lower court could never have ruled in favor of LAUSD, granting its MJOP under Jacobson, because Jacobson does not apply to medicine.
SO WHAT IS JACOBSON?
Jacobson is a USSC ruling that held that states can mandate jabs on adults during an outbreak with exemptions because this is “rationally related” to and part of the states’ 10th Amendment “police power” to protect the health, safety and well-being of its residents, such as preventing the spread of disease (in that case smallpox). Because CEMF and HFDF plead that the CDC admits the CV19 jabs do not prevent transmission, but only (allegedly) mitigate symptoms, etc. and that natural immunity is better, the jabs are — at best — therapeutics, which states do not have the police power to compel.
TO BE CLEAR:
STATES DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE CITIZENS TO TAKE MEDICINES OF ANY KIND, FOR ANY REASON. (yes, even during a declared “emergency”). Rather, every American has the fundamental, constitutionally-protected right to decide what goes into their body and — in some states — even the right to die. To understand more, read FLTJ’a first blog post ever laying the entire basis for the underlying lawsuit out.
COURT OF APPEAL CLIFFS NOTE:
“[The] right of a competent individual to refuse medical treatment was entirely consistent with this Nation's history and constitutional traditions, in light of the common-law rule that forced medication was a battery, and the long legal tradition protecting the decision to refuse unwanted medical treatment. … compulsory treatment for the health benefit of the person treated — as opposed to compulsory treatment for the health benefit of others — implicates the fundamental right to refuse medical treatment.”
For this and other gems, read the full decision here. It’s worth the read. One might say to read it as if your life — and Freedom — depended on it.
WELL DONE !!! Fight ON !!!