Fighting CA’s authoritarian health orders: Federal lawsuit Tandon v Newsom

Paulette Altmaier and her husband have paid to file a suit against Gavin Newsom on behalf of plaintiffs who have lost constitutional rights due to Newsom’s handling of the lockdown.

If you would like to help support this lawsuit, please consider a donation to Liberty Center specifically for this lawsuit:

https://libertycenter.org/pf/tandon-v-newsom/

Fighting CA’s authoritarian health orders: Federal lawsuit Tandon v Newsom

  1. Key Points:
  • This lawsuit is intended to help all of CA, and emphasizes the loss of individual rights and the right to earn a living. The plaintiffs were selected to be representative of these losses.
  • The lawsuit takes a broad approach, making the case for a return to normal Constitutional order in CA
  • It draws a parallel with the Supreme Court’s total deference to the military’s emergency authority in the Japanese Internment court case. That decision (Korematsu) has been repudiated by the Supreme court since, and lives in infamy in the court of history.
  • The lawsuit asks the Courts not to make the same mistake by providing excessive deference to CA’s excessive and authoritarian approach, 7 long months into the covid pandemic
  • The Expert Declarations emphasize that in all past pandemics, hospitalizations and deaths were used as the criteria when determining public health actions, not positive test results, and that CA has never had more than 10% of its hospital beds filled with covid patients.
  • The filing is now complete. The key filing documents – the Complaint (read this first), the Main Brief, and two Expert Declarations – can be read by going to the public google directory whose URL is provided here. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/12tcp-Vz_97uO0V7QEkzlei4pVzj5qPFM?usp=sharing
  • We were very fortunate in being able to recruit two top-tier experts for the Expert Declarations –

 

  • Dr Jay Bhattacharya is a Professor of Medicine at Stanford, and is one of the 3 principals behind The Great Barrington Declaration   together with Harvard’s Dr Martin Kulldorf and Oxford’s Dr Sunetra Gupta. He makes the case for how unscientific CA’s approach is.

 

  • Dr Rajiv Bhatia is a practicing physician affiliated with Stanford University, and a former public health officer. He makes the case for how CA’s approach violates international accords and norms on Public Health principles and ethics.

 

  1. Please support this public-interest case with a tax-deductible donation

 

Since this is a public-interest lawsuit, the non-profit 501c(3) Center for American Liberty is supporting it and has created a donation page where people can contribute to support this SPECIFIC lawsuit, and your donation is tax-deductible.

 

The Center does not have the resources to actually fund the lawsuit out of existing funds, so my husband and I have guaranteed payment for whatever balance is outstanding after the community has contributed.

 

The cost for the lawsuit at the District court level is more than $115K, so your support is greatly appreciated.

 

Here is the link to the page specifically for this lawsuit: Tandon vs Newsom (named after the first-listed plaintiff).

https://libertycenter.org/pf/tandon-v-newsom/

 

Please note that at the bottom of the page is another link to donate to the Liberty Center overall. Donations made at that link will NOT help defray the cost of this specific lawsuit, so please be careful which link you click on.

 

  1. Initial win just prior to filing

One of the First Amendment issues in our filings was that one of our plaintiffs, Ritesh Tandon, who is a candidate for US Congress, has not been able to hold meetings and fundraisers in person as normally done when running for political office. The Main Brief originally included a request for an immediate Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to permit this essential First Amendment activity.

Just before our lawyers filed the Main Brief, Newsom’s DoJ got back to them and said they were going to update the State’s rules to state explicitly that all outdoor political gatherings (which we are free to call “rallies”) would now share the same exemption as protests currently have. So this is an initial win even before we enter legal proceedings.

This does not change our list of plaintiffs. The only change is that we are no longer seeking a TRO.

CA has updated its website to reflect the change. You can see the new exemption at this link, under the subheading ‘Can I go to Political Rallies and Protest Gatherings?’

https://covid19.ca.gov/stay-home-except-for-essential-needs/