Litigation Work
Fighting Fauci and Friends: Covid Criminal Charges
Many Americans have been begging for criminal charges against government actors, including Dr. Fauci, Dr. Walensky, and others for their willful and complicit decisions and actions that have led to thousands of deaths from the government’s proposed treatment of COVID-19. Silent Majority Foundation has joined with Vires Law in requesting a criminal investigation (and hopeful prosecution) of these individuals for these alleged crimes in the State of Florida. This effort is presently focused in Florida for several reasons:
Our colleagues’ presence in Florida; Floridians Seek Justice For Dr. Fauci, Medical Establishment - Miami Independent
SMF’s General Counsel’s licensure is in Florida;
Florida has been one of the few states that has fought the federal government’s COVID narrative, including the Florida Surgeon General’s push back on the federal government’s “scientific” approach to handling COVID-19.
SMF believes that these reasons demonstrate that Florida offers one of the best opportunities for prosecution of these alleged crimes, and that now is the time based on evidence, data, and a continued interest in justice. We’re proud to be part of this team, and we’re looking forward to the day when we are able to present this information to the Attorney General of Florida and soon thereafter to Attorneys General of many states.
Thank you for supporting our work! To read case documents and donate to this case visit our website at: www.SMFJB.org
Turner et al. V WMC
This case is about protecting free speech for Doctors across Washington and holding the Washington Medical Commission accountable for using a Position Statement that is not a rule to punish doctors. After we sued the Washington Medical Commission we asked the judge to enjoin the enforcement of the unlawful position statement for two reasons
It was passed without allowing doctors or the public to comment on it (among other omissions) -- a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.
It violated Doctors' free speech by punishing them for talking about COVID -19 treatments the Commission disapproved of.
Thank you for supporting our work! To read case documents and donate to this case visit our website at: https://silentmajorityfoundation.org/turnervwmc/
Washington State v. Gator Custom Guns
When Gator's Custom Guns received a Civil Investigative Demand, they contacted Silent Majority Foundation. When WE fought back to challenge the CID, the State Attorney General filed suit! Help us challenge the CID and Defend Gators from the State's tyranny! Donate to the legal fun for State of WA V. Gator's Custom Guns and join the struggle to regain our 2nd Amendment rights!
Brumback v. Ferguson
On July 14, 2022, SMF filed a lawsuit in Yakima County Superior Court to challenge Senate Bill 5078, Washington's "high-capacity" magazine ban. The case was quickly moved to Federal Court in Yakima.
We're excited about this case for several reasons:
1. It shows our continued commitment to fighting for our constitutional rights;
2. We brought the case with a plaintiff who was barred from buying a magazine and a vendor who was prohibited from selling a magazine to ensure we hit both sides of the equation; and
3. The recent United States Supreme Court case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, has changed the analysis of 2nd Amendment infringement/impairments to a single question that requires the government to "affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.
Silent Majority Foundation v. Inslee (HB1705)
On March 16, 2023, Silent Majority Foundation filed an Amended Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief requesting the Court enter an injunction against the implementation of the challenged sections of RCW 9.41.190 as detailed in our Amended Complaint. This filing also requests the Court to grant Declaratory Judgment declaring the challenged laws invalid as they impair individuals right to bear arms and violate the right to due process.
On March 16, 2023, Silent Majority Foundation filed an Amended Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief requesting the Court enter an injunction against the implementation of the challenged sections of RCW 9.41.190 as detailed in our Amended Complaint. This filing also requests the Court to grant Declaratory Judgment declaring the challenged laws invalid as they impair individuals right to bear arms and violate the right to due process.
HB1705 unconstitutionally and categorically bans, under severe monetary and confiement penalties, the manufacture, sale, transfer, purchase, transport, receipt of, and even posession of untraceable firearms. These bans are a broad attack on Washington’s Constitution and it’s people.
Zimmerman v. Peacehealth
On 12/12/2022, Silent Majority Foundation filed a class action lawsuit against PeaceHealth on behalf of PeaceHealth employees who were placed on indefinite administrative leave without pay for failure to receive the COVID-19 shot. These employees sought religious exemptions and received them, but PeaceHealth refused to accommodate them. We are seeking injunctive relief (to end the indefinite leave without pay and regain employment) and damages.
UPDATE:
On 11/9/2023, we received an Order from the court DENYING Peacehealths efforts to dismiss the lawsuit. This latest order from US District Court Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright denied in part and granted in part Peacehealth’s Motion to Dismiss. This is a huge step in the right direction for this case given the government overreach issues facing Washington state.
Our most recent filing included 3 new claims. Peacehealth now has 30 days to respond to these new claims as we move forward on our original claims.
Wilkinson v. Rodgers
SMF brought this suit on behalf of three doctors licensed in Washington State: Dr. Rick Wilkinson (Yakima), Dr. Richard Eggleston (Clarkston), and Dr. Ryan Cole (Boise, ID) who are being prosecuted by the Washington Medical Commission (WMC) for COVID-19 misinformation/disinformation and for prescribing Ivermectin under the WMC’s COVID-19 Position Statement.
SMF has challenged the WMC’s punitive actions to STOP these actions, requesting a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). Judge Rice’s decision to deny the TRO was based on his belief that the WMC’s Position Statement is not enforceable as it says that it “may” be enforced. Obviously, we disagree with that position. Judge Rice also stated that he could not decide on the merits of the case as each Dr.’s license is currently in the middle of an investigation from the WMC, so the federal court is required to abstain from deciding the merits UNTIL the WMC’s process is completed.
We have an opportunity to submit an amended complaint in Federal Court as well as a complaint on state issues in Thurston County. Stay tuned as we take further action.
Your donation allows us to fund the time our legal team needs to take further action!
Wilkinson v. WMC (Washington Medical Commission)
We are appealing the findings and disciplinary action taken against Dr. Wilkinson for his treatment of COVID-19 with Ivermectin and for his discussion of the treatment on his blogs and in a public meeting. The WA Medical Commission deemed these activities “act[s] of moral turpitude” and claimed that Dr. Wilkinson took an “extremely unbalanced look at COVID-19, downplaying the seriousness of COVID-19.” The WMC’s determination that it can regulate Dr. Wilkinson’s speech and its decision to regulate Dr. Wilkinson’s treatment of patients presents the necessity of our appeal. The WMC’s violations of Dr. Wilkinson’s rights can be summarized as follows:
The WMC based two of its unprofessional conduct findings are based solely on his speech, violating his Free Speech rights. Additionally, the WMC is punishing Dr. Wilkinson for not telling clients that he was prescribing ivermectin “off-label,” a requirement that applies to no other drug--such unjustified compelled speech is unconstitutional.
Dr. Wilkinson is being forced to attend the equivalent of a reeducation camp and required to undergo physical, mental, and psychological evaluations while there simply because he said and did things the Washington Medical Commission disagrees with, violating his statutory and due process rights.
The WMC disregarded patients testimony that they were fully informed about ivermectin and other recommendations made by Dr. Wilkinson.
In summary, we’re pressing on in this matter as we must represent Dr. Wilkinson in an effort to preserve his rights to free speech and his ability to treat patients with his knowledge and understanding. It is imperative that these rights be protected so we all can enjoy medical freedom.
Linebarger Case
The people have a right of access to courts; indeed, it is ‘the bedrock foundation upon which rest all of the people’s rights and obligations.’”
Putman v. Wenatchee Valley Medical Center, P.S., 166 Wn.2d 974, 979, 216 P.3d 374 (2009) (quoting John Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Ctr., 117 Wn.2d 772, 780, 819 P.2d 370 (1991)).
Silent Majority Foundation filed an appeal on behalf of Rob Linebarger, an individual who sought to recall three Central Valley School District (Liberty Lake, WA) school board members who instituted harsh COVID-19 protocols. Although Mr. Linebarger had hired two attorneys (not SMF attorneys) to assist with the recall, the recall was unsuccessful, and the Central Valley School District sought sanctions (monetary compensation) from Mr. Linebarger and his attorneys. $22,500 of the $30,000 in sanctions was assessed against Mr. Linebarger. Mr. Linebarger, with the assistance of SMF filed this appeal, challenging the award of the sanctions as he was exercising his constitutional right to Recall Washington Public Officers. WA Constitution, Article I, Sec. 33 and 34. (verbiage below)
SECTION 33 RECALL OF ELECTIVE OFFICERS. Every elective public officer of the state of Washington expect [except] judges of courts of record is subject to recall and discharge by the legal voters of the state, or of the political subdivision of the state, from which he was elected whenever a petition demanding his recall, reciting that such officer has committed some act or acts of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office, or who has violated his oath of office, stating the matters complained of, signed by the percentages of the qualified electors thereof, hereinafter provided, the percentage required to be computed from the total number of votes cast for all candidates for his said office to which he was elected at the preceding election, is filed with the officer with whom a petition for nomination, or certificate for nomination, to such office must be filed under the laws of this state, and the same officer shall call a special election as provided by the general election laws of this state, and the result determined as therein provided. [AMENDMENT 8, 1911 p 504 Section 1. Approved November, 1912.]
SECTION 34 SAME. The legislature shall pass the necessary laws to carry out the provisions of section thirty-three (33) of this article, and to facilitate its operation and effect without delay: Provided, That the authority hereby conferred upon the legislature shall not be construed to grant to the legislature any exclusive power of lawmaking nor in any way limit the initiative and referendum powers reserved by the people. The percentages required shall be, state officers, other than judges, senators and representatives, city officers of cities of the first class, school district boards in cities of the first class; county officers of counties of the first, second and third classes, twenty-five per cent. Officers of all other political subdivisions, cities, towns, townships, precincts and school districts not herein mentioned, and state senators and representatives, thirty-five per cent. [AMENDMENT 8, 1911 p 504 Section 1. Approved November, 1912.]
As the right to speak freely and to petition the government for redress are two of the most important rights protected by the Constitution, SMF sees tremendous value in fighting to ensure this type of censorship and government abuse does not continue.
Stay tuned as we await the Board Members' brief.
Kittleson v. PeaceHealth
We have filed a new complaint against PeaceHealth, Kittleson v. PeaceHealth, on behalf of those who were not accommodated despite having a disability that would not allow them to receive any of the vaccines. Each of the three plaintiffs have had reactions to previous vaccines making them more likely to have a reaction to future vaccines. Despite this fact, PeaceHealth decided that it knew better than our plaintiffs’ doctors and insisted that they could and should take the vaccine. As a result, PeaceHealth refused to accommodate any of them.
The facts in this case are presented below:
PeaceHealth adopted its COVID vaccination mandate on the idea that the vaccine would stop transmission of the virus. There was ample information out from trusted sources that the vaccine would not stop the virus. Why was this not considered?
Plaintiff’s Disabilities. Evidence of medical conditions and adverse reactions from past vaccinations was presented to PeaceHealth. No accommodation was provided despite these disabilities.
The Process Used by PeaceHealth Upon Enacting the COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate. PeaceHealth has long had a requirement for staff to receive the flu vaccination, allowing a simple religious or medical opt-out which was accommodated. That process changed significantly with the COVID-19 Vaccination Policy implementation.
The Effect of PeaceHealth’s Actions on Plaintiff’s. Each of the Plaintiffs have experienced extreme hardship as a result of PeaceHealth’s actions. Financially they have had to sacrifice in ways most of us have never experienced. They have also paid extreme emotional consequences as well, including panic attacks an suicidal thoughts. The fact that PeaceHealth believed it acceptable to require that they risk their lives or lose their jobs shows the unreasonable business practices PeaceHealth is willing to employ.
PeaceHealth Could have Accommodated Unvaccinated Employees without Significant Difficulty or Expense. In the Zimmerman v. PeaceHealth Title VII case, the judge said that we have stated a colorable claim that PeaceHealth could have accommodated and have yet to prove that accommodating Plaintiffs was an undue burden. We expect that the same will happen in this case.
PeaceHealth will have to answer the complaint within 90 days. We are excited for our Plaintiff’s as this case moves forward. Karen Osborne has, as usual, done a fantastic job with this brief. Thank you for your hard work, Karen!
RE: Dr. Renata Moon
Dr. Moon is an exceptionally well-trained pediatrician with over 25 years of clinical experience. She trained at a top U.S. medical school, earning board certification in both general pediatrics and pediatric hospital medicine. With an unblemished career record of patient care, Dr. Moon practiced in the State of Washington for over 17 years primarily as a pediatric hospitalist at Sacred Heart Children's Hospital in Spokane. Despite caring for the region’s sickest children – patient care with one of the highest risks of malpractice claims – she has had no malpractice claims or actions against her license in Washington State or elsewhere.
Dr. Moon testified at a public hearing entitled “Covid-19 Vaccines: What They Are, How They Work, and Possible Causes of Injuries” held by a US Senator in Washington DC in December 2022. In July 2023, Washington State’s Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine reported Dr. Moon’s public testimony to The Washington Medical Commission. The Washington Medical Commission is now investigating Dr. Moon’s medical license for alleged “unprofessional conduct” for voicing concern about the dangers of the Covid-19 shots at this senate hearing. The current investigation by the Washington Medical Commission is frivolous, based on unsound policy and persecutes a physician simply for speaking.
This investigation is an attempt by the Washington Medical Commission to regulate Dr. Moon’s rights of petition, assembly, and speech, and to chill these first amendment rights and those of other medical professionals. A medical professional is not required to agree with any government agency, including the Washington Medical Commission. A medical professional has the obligation to put the well-being of his or her patients before any government-imposed orthodoxy or narrative. A medical professional has the right to gather with other medical professionals and petition the government regarding issues of public interest. In addition, medical ethics dictates that a medical professional has the obligation to speak out when there is a concern that a medical product, which is being used widely and indiscriminately, poses potential risks or where questions arise about its safety. Such debate provides a healthy check and balance on the practice of medicine and promote the primary responsibility to first do no harm.
Silent Majority Foundation (SMF) is a 501(c)(3) organization centered on protecting America's constitution and theological foundation. As founders of SMF, we support, protect and defend the constitution of our United States through education, advocacy, and litigation efforts. SMF will always focus on God and Country as the core of our mission.