WMC Can't Back Up Claims
Update on Wilkinson v. WMC
“In fact, none of the Commission’s claims was proven by a preponderance of evidence, let alone by clear and convincing evidence. Thus, the Commission failed to meet its standard of proof for making its findings.” -Karen Osborne, Attorney
Last week, SMF filed a response in our Wilkinson v. WMC case. As you may recall with this case, 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 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.
While the WMC is bold in its claims that Dr. Wilkinsons speech was “harmful and dangerous to individual patients, generated mistrust in the medical profession and in public health, and had a widespread negative impact on the health and well-being of the community” they failed to provide evidence backing up its claims, even as to the efficacy of it’s prescribed and policed “standard of care” during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have attached the brief and will summarize our arguments below:
The WMC failed to address Dr. Wilkinson’s constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech. Our First Amendment was incorporated into the states through the 14th Amendment.
The Washington Constitution’s corollary right to freedom of speech reads, “Every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being
responsible for the abuse of that right. Const. art. 1, § 5. The free speech rights protected under the Washington Constitution are often greater than those protected by the United States Constitution. State v. Reece, 110 Wn.2d 766,
757 P.2d 947 (Wash. 1988) (“The Washington Supreme Court has in the past and will continue in the future to accept its duty to interpret its constitution to be more protective of individual rights than the federal constitution.”).
Our Washington State Constitution is clear. The WMC has failed in protecting the individual rights of Dr. Wilkinson.
The Washington Medical Commission violated Appellant’s due process rights by failing to provide Appellant notice and a fair hearing on the Order’s requirement that Appellant undergo a physical, cognitive, and psychological
examination. None of the statutory due process requirements was met resulting in a fatally flawed process by the Commission.
The Washington Medical Commission applied the incorrect standard to find that Appellant committed unprofessional conduct by failing to support such
allegations with clear and convincing evidence. One of the standards is that the violation of the standard “results in injury to a patient or which creates an unreasonable risk that a patient is harmed.” While the Commission “found” Appellant’s actions were below the standard of care, and lists such actions, the Order offers neither support nor a conclusion that those facts amount
to harm or an unreasonable risk of harm.
The Commission’s punishment of Appellant is in retaliation for his speech and should not be allowed. The Ninth Circuit succinctly addressed the issue of retaliatory action against an individual’s right of free speech, although it is not clear that Washington has adopted the test. Nonetheless, the elements of the inquiry are as follows: “Otherwise lawful government action may nonetheless be
unlawful if motivated by retaliation for having engaged in activity protected under the First Amendment.” O’Brien v. 35 Welty, 818 F.3d 920, 932 (9th Cir. 2016).
The Commission’s selective enforcement was improper and violates Appellant’s rights. Simply said, the Commission disagreed with Dr. Wilkinson’s speech and so was punished for his position.
With these facts in mind, SMF is standing for a complete reversal of the actions taken against Dr. Wilkinson by the Washington State Medical Commission. Karen has done an outstanding job with this case and continues to fight the good fight for Constitutional rights! Thank you, Karen!
Currently, we are short of our fundraising goal for this case. Please consider a tax-deductible donation or stock donation to allow us to continue our fight for medical freedom and freedom of speech. Thank you!
Events and Media
Pete Serrano recently did an interview with Bernadette Pajer from Informed Life Radio. Informed Choice WA and Children’s Health Defense are incredible allies and freedom fighters. Check out this informative podcast.
Because I Must Speak Free with Renata Moon
Monday, January 22, 2024, 7:00 pm - 8:45 pm, The Multi-purpose Room at Hutton Elementary School, 908 E 24th Ave, Spokane, WA 99203.
Washington State Legislation Update
HB 2157 and SB 5982 Updating the definition of "vaccine" in RCW 70.290.010 to include all federal food and drug administration-approved immunizations recommended by the centers for disease control and prevention. (By request of Department of Health).
SB6095 Establishing clear authority for the Secretary of Health to issue standing orders. (By request of Department of Health).
Follow Us on Social
Social Links
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/silentmajorityfoundation
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/silentmajorityfoundation
Gab: https://gab.com/silentmajorityfoundation
Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@SilentMajorityFoundation
Twitter: https://twitter.com/smfjb_org