THE MOST DANGEROUS DOCTOR IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-RICHARD PAN-Complaint Information:click the link below to file against physician license number 84883
The Medical Board is responsible for reviewing and investigating complaints about, and disciplining licensed physicians. We must flood the medical board with requests and make our voices heard. We believe Dr. Pan is the most dangerous doctor in the country and must be stopped. Forced unlimited vaccinations is the most dangerous and tyrannical proposed edict in our Nation’s history.
Complaint Against Senator Richard Pan
California Senate Health Committee Hearing and Vote on SB277, Public Health: vaccinations
Date: 4/8/2015
Testimony given by California State Senator, Dr. Richard Pan, on April 8, 2015, directly contradict established facts in the following source documents:
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
- CA SB277, Public health: vaccinations
In context, Dr. Pan, as author of SB277, is using his medical license to create, influence passage, and enact public health legislation based on testimony in direct conflict with readily-available and established fact.
The following is excerpted testimony given by Sen. Richard Pan as statements and in answer to fellow Health Committee member’s questions. The video of this testimony is provided here:http://calchannel.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=2716&hc_location=ufi
Senator Pan testimony:
- 00:21:50 Vaccines are safe and efficacious.
- 00:23:45 Evidence shows that the disease that has been prevented by vaccination is at least a thousand times more likely to cause a lasting problem than the vaccine itself and there have been no confirmed deaths caused by the measles vaccine.
Statements 1 and 2 are invalid, as evidenced in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to compensate vaccine-related injury or death. The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database, as of December 14, 2014 articulates 6,962 serious adverse events reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in connection with measles vaccine since 1990, with over half of those occurring in children three years old and under. Of these events329 were deaths, with over half of the deaths occurring in children under three years of age. To date, more than $2.8 billion has been awarded to victims and victim’s family for overall vaccine injury and death.
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html
- 0026:00 Let me be clear, SB277 does not mandate vaccinations, but the choice, that choice, requires responsibility and we have the responsibility to protect all children attending school by requiring vaccinations when children go attend school with other children.
- 3:02:00 As I said before, this bill is not about mandatory vaccinations; we don’t want to get to the place where we are going to be mandatorily vaccinating children against their parents’ will.
- 03:37:30 Informed consent is still necessary to get your child vaccinated. (in reference to the amended bill)
Statements #3 – 5 are incorrect. Reference SB277 Public health: vaccinations, which calls for mandatory vaccination for all school children, where parents will not be able to get a medical exemption for their children and will not be able to home school and will face the possible permanent removal of their children from their homes, fines and imprisonment. The bill does, in fact, get rid of “personal believe exemption” the only non-medical exemption. Per SB277 language, “This bill would eliminate the exemption from immunization based upon personal beliefs.” Furthermore, “informed consent” is not an exemption and, therefore, cannot be asserted as ‘still necessary to get your child vaccinated.’
Source document: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB277
This bill is about taking away your God given rights to protect our children’s bodies from the tyrannical edicts of medical tyranny and what amounts to forced medical procedures and forced poisoning of our children’s bloodstreams. No religious or personal belief exemption in the bill means an impossible to obtain medical exemption door is closed resulting in forced vaccinations at gunpoint for those who cannot afford to home school.
Dr. Pan acting as a physician in his professional capacity in order to unduly directly influence the legislative process with what appear to bald faced lies is, in our opinion amounts to valid grounds for revocation of his medical license. In addition, we believe his actions are in clear, absolute and direct violation of the American Medical Association’s code of ethics. Dr. Pan knows the following American Medical Association (AMA) Code of Ethics opinions completely contradict FORCED vaccination:
Apparently, Richard Pan has no regard for Freedom of Religion, informed consent that the American Medical Association upholds in its Code of Ethics. Does he support a totalitarian government that will force parents to vaccinate their children whether they are publicly, privately, or homeschooled or face criminal charges? Therefore it is time for all parents to call for the:
Revocation and/or Suspension of Dr. Pan’s Physician License.
The state licensing board has wide discretion in the matter of revocation of licenses and may revoke a license without any terms or conditions, leaving no possibility for reinstatement.
The general defenses against a revocation of license include denial of due process, violation of equal protection clause, compelling self-incrimination, etc. However, courts have held in a number of cases that the “state had a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from incompetent physicians, and requiring doctors suspected of being incompetent to attend an investigatory hearing or submit to reexamination was rationally related to that interest, so neither a statute nor a board’s treatment of a physician violated the equal protection clause[iii].” However, such revocation shall be done only after affording sufficient notice and hearing and courts have held that a substantially ex parte proceeding of revocation violates due process.
A statute empowering the state licensing board to revoke licenses shall not be vague and ambiguous. Courts have held that certain acts or conduct that are described in broad general terms are not prima facie objectionable if the general words are accompanied by more specific ones that may be properly construed to limit and make certain the general ones. The legislative purpose of the statute is protecting the public against the unauthorized practice of medicine and courts have held that the Board must be accorded authority to define the grounds for medical discipline on a case-by-case basis[iv].
The Board’s power to revoke licenses includes the power to suspend an erring medical practitioner from practice. Upon a finding of unprofessional conduct warranting revocation, the Board has discretion suspend the practitioner from practice for the period permitted by the statute. The board can also impose conditions during the suspension period and may require a showing of professional competence before reinstating a license[v].
Professional incompetence, bad character, immorality, professional misconduct, dishonorable conduct, conviction of criminal offense, and gross negligence form valid grounds for revocation of license. The valid grounds for revocation of license may often be enlisted in the statute. Acting in excess of one’s professional authority, like for instance, engaging in the general practice of medicine or surgery, or professing to do so, in excess of a license limited to the practice of special branch of medicine warrants the revocation of the limited license.
The board has power to initiate disciplinary action against a physician even in the absence of any complaints from the patients. The board may take action even in the case of a single act of violation and in the absence of proof of injury.
Courts have held that the revocation of a license is proper if the physician has been found guilty of drug abuse or was suffering from mental disability.
The procedure for revocation may be established by statute and state legislatures generally delegate to an administrative tribunal the power of revocation or suspension, together with the power to hear and determine charges. “A trial and conviction in a court of competent jurisdiction is not a condition precedent to a proceeding by the state board of health against a physician to revoke his license for any of the causes provided by statute[viii].”
Generally, statutes of limitation are not applicable to disciplinary proceedings and courts have held that due process does not require the application of a statute of limitations to such proceedings. However, due process requires the application of the doctrine of laches, albeit narrowly to license revocation proceedings[ix]. Courts have held that this has to be done without jeopardizing the public interest.
Moreover, the evidence must unequivocally indicate that the conduct of the licensee did not conform to the conduct of a member of the same profession exercising reasonable care and skill, supplemented by testimony to the effect that other professionals would have utilized a different procedure is insufficient to establish negligence or incompetence[xi].
The burden of proof is on the applicant seeking restoration of a medical license. The applicant must adduce sufficient evidence so ineluctable in its implications that it would compel restoration of license by the Board. There is conflict of opinion regarding the burden of proof. One view is that issues of fact in a revocation or suspension proceeding do not have to be shown beyond a reasonable doubt, but only by a preponderance of the evidence. On the other hand, some courts have held that the board is required to use clear and convincing evidence due to the plenary nature of the proceedings[xii].
Courts will review the conclusions of law de novo. While reviewing the sanctions imposed by the licensing board, the court defers to the board’s expertise and will not generally substitute its discretion for that of the board. The physician can seek mandamus as an available and appropriate remedy for wrongful revocation if no other method of review has been provided by the statute. However, mandamus is not the proper remedy if the statute provides another adequate remedy, such as appeal.
[i] Younge v. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts, 451 S.W.2d 346 (Mo. 1969).
[ii] Faulkenstein v. District of Columbia Bd. of Medicine, 727 A.2d 302 (D.C. 1999).
[iii] Artman v. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts, 918 S.W.2d 247 (Mo. 1996).
[iv] State Bd. of Medical Examiners v. McCroskey, 880 P.2d 1188 (Colo. 1994).
[v] Board of Dental Examiners v. Hufford, 461 N.W.2d 194 (Iowa 1990).
[vi] Ricks v. Mississippi State Dept. of Health, 719 So. 2d 173 (Miss. 1998).
[vii] Paulson v. Board of Medical Examiners of State of Iowa, 592 N.W.2d 677 (Iowa 1999).
[viii] Bandeen v. Howard, 299 S.W.2d 249 (Ky. 1956)
[ix] Sinha v. Ambach, 91 A.D.2d 703, 457 N.Y.S.2d 603 (3d Dep’t 1982).
[x] Artman v. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts, 918 S.W.2d 247 (Mo. 1996).
[xi] Sizemore v. Texas State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 747 S.W.2d 389 (Tex. App. Dallas 1987).
[xii] Painter v. Abels, 998 P.2d 931 (Wyo. 2000).
#1 by Must read on April 18, 2015 - 9:49 pm
Democrats Sell California Children For Campaign Money…
Merck Bought the California Senate Health Committee Vote – 6 to 2.
California “NO on SB277” Groups, Formerly Stumbling, Now Involved In Major Assault…
Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
Friday, April 17th , 2015
How in the F*** did you LOSE California?
Autism Leadership Council
I’ve been in California a VERY long time. I’ve watched California politics on health care. Here, the Health Freedom Movement thrives. Every one of our practitioners is protected. The State is wide open for excellent health care.
So, tell me How in the F*** did you lose SB277 in the Senate Health committee? Do people in the autism world not know where Sacramento is? It is the State capital. It’s right there where it has always been.
There, in Sacramento, there is this thing called the State Legislature. They author and vote on bills. SB277 was, and is, a bill that the State Legislature is looking at so the people you need to talk to are going to be in Sacramento. Look it up on a map.
This isn’t rocket science. It’s politics and politics isn’t being namby-pamby nice, and smiling softly to a staffer.
The “No on SB277” strategies and tactics I’ve been watching, from the sidelines, are seventy years old, out of the Jimmy Stewart “Mr Smith goes to Washington” movie. They didn’t work in real life then, and they certainly don’t work now.
Wake the f*** up people…
Having the members of the State legislature “like you” is NOT a factor. It plays NO PART in the argument. This is politics. There are books on this process you could read.
The California strategy team (snort here) was given information on how much money was given to each member of each committee by MERCK, just recently,
that will review SB277 and decided to hide it and NOT make it an issue.
I’m beginning to think the California campaign is being run by “Health Choice.” Are Ken and Barbie about to show up in the Barbie Yacht on the Sacramento River hosting a yacht party for only $5,000 per attendee? Will there be photo opportunities with the bill’s authors?
There are TWO more committees, people. Put down the lolly-pops and get out the napalm…
You need to win.
Tim Bolen
http://www.bolenreport.com
What I predicted would happen over the California Mandatory Vaccine bill SB277, for innocent children, in the California Senate Health Committee did happen. The bill was approved in committee six to two, with one abstention. California was the one place Merck needed to win. What happens in California spreads across the nation. We’ll see what happens next.
Although this battle has already been won by the “No Mandatory Vaccines” groups in Washington, Oregon, North Carolina, Oklahoma, New Jersey, and Maryland, California became a problem. As former Republican gubernatorial candidate “Tim Donnelly” describes his new radio show, he is “Broadcasting from deep behind enemy lines in the occupied territory of the socialist republic of California.”
My kind of guy…
So much money was poured, in the last few years, into Democratic campaign coffers in California, by Big Pharma, that you could feed a starving country. Why? Obviously, to get Mandatory Vaccinations forced on California children. And why is that? Because both Merck, and the Democrats, need the money generated by that campaign, desperately…
Desperately.
A week ago I wrote a piece for the “Autism Leadership Council” email list called “How In the F*** Did You Lose California…” referring, of course, to the California Mandatory Vaccination bill SB277 in the Senate Health Committee. It ended up all over FaceBook. Good. It is in the box on the right.
I received a lot of comments, and was brought up to speed on EXACTLY how the loss occurred. As it turns out I HAD sensed what was wrong, and mentioned it in my piece.. There was a fox in the henhouse.
Two of the comments came from activism leadership in other parts of America. I’ll let you read them just below. The first is from the North Carolina group that wiped the legislative floor with the sponsors of the same Mandatory Vaccine bill in North Carolina. The second is from long-time activist Ingri Cassell.
From North Carolina:
“Hi Tim,
I read your recent letter about how CA is screwing up. My husband could have written the same letter. How we beat the bill here in NC is by not baking cookies (as one infiltrator suggested) but by slamming them hard & fast.
Please add me to any newsletter you send out.
My group was formed in 1996 to educate parents. vaccineeducation.com.
Lisa Jillani, founder/director, PAVE
flamingly & unashamedly anti-vaccine – Lisa Jillani, PAVE [werpave@yahoo.com]
Maybe the California people could contact Lisa and her husband?
From Ingri Cassell:
“Well, we know Tim Bolen is angry at Autism Leadership. He also knows that many autism advocacy groups have been bought off by Big Pharma. And there are still many parents of autistic children in denial of the vaccine connection. Heck, it seems to me that since Tim is a main advocate for Health Freedom, and since the vaccine issue is the NUMBER ONE health freedom issue, he should be angry at himself for not doing more since he lives in California and should have done a lot more to do the effective activism needed to defeat SB 277. But it is not over yet. If this does pass, there will be a mass exodus into our state…we already have too many Californians moving here… Following are the four points that I sent to someone else — points that the Senate H&W Committee members seemed to be completely unaware of.
1) THREE Merck (MMR) whistleblowers See http://ww.vaclib.org/news/CDCwhistleblower.htm
2) The lack of credible science justifying vaccines. There is quite a debate on the ‘lack of’ real science behind the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ recomendations for Vaccines for Children (VFC). David L. Lewis, PhD, worked for the EPA and CDC for over 30 years and details this problem in his book, Science for Sale: How the US Government Uses Powerful Corporations and Leading Universities to Support Government Policies, Silence Top Scientists, Jeopardize Our Health, and Protect Corporate Profits.
3) the MYTH of herd immunity. See http://ww.vaclib.org/links/herdimmunity.htm, and
4) the biggest issue of all — the fact that ALL players in the vaccine scam are released of liability for the harm the vaccines are known to cause.
~Ingri”
Note to Ingri: You are right. I should have done more. And now, after what I have been told, I am on the warpath…
When the earlier California bill, last year, AB 2109 came around, making you get a signature from your doctor for a vaccine exemption, I did offer my services (for free). I ran into a wall of defeatism, anger, and boundless unpleasantness. I knew, right then, that AB2109 would pass. Why? The anti-AB2109 people I had contacted, had NO CLUE how to run a campaign, and were not interested in learning how, or taking advantage of the assets, knowledge, and skills, of the millions of advocates in the US Health Freedom Movement.
For a while it looked like the same bag of idiots were running the anti-SB277 campaign, and California was going down in flames.
But then some things happened, and other groups began to rip the leadership reins out of their hands and start to function in a way that made sense. And things started to happen.
Yup – it turns out one of original California organizers of anti-SB277 were the Health Choice/Canary Party, emphasis on “Party.” For those of you who have just tuned in, please take the time to read about them by clicking here – http://www.bolenreport.com/autism/autism%20infighting16.htm.
More Articles About the Vaccine Hoax
Of Course I’m Anti-Vaccine… I Have a Brain. 2/6/15
It is Time to Stop This Vaccine Nonsense… It is all One Monstrous Horror Show… 2/17/15
It Is Time To Kill The Drug Lord Vampires… Get out the Silver Bullets. Sharpen the Wooden Stakes. Grab Some Garlic. Let’s Go Hunting… We Need to Save Our Children… 2/25/15
It is Time To End the US Vaccine Program… This Dangerous “Vaccine Construction” Needs to be Disassembled… We Need to Save Our Nation… 3/12/15
Another group is being run by what appear to be avatars – and they will not identify who they are. A FaceBook group, calling itself “Our Kids Our Choice” has suddenly come into question because of considerable “Controlled Opposition” tactics. Frankly, this group looks to me like they are being run by the SB277 bill’s author Richard Pan MD, and/or his associates.
Make no mistake – THERE WERE definitely honest, competent groups working on this problem, some centered around the five thousand (5,000) member “California Coalition For Vaccine Choice” FaceBook page. It is just that OTHERS, it looks to me, were attempting to DOMINATE the project and EXCLUDE those that knew what to do, and when.
And, there was the very smart emerging Los Angeles based group… More on that later.
A little Side Note.
The Mandatory Vaccine bills were introduced in about twenty State locations – all at once and ALL THE SAME. They were all the same language. In other words the same group wrote every one of them. So far, every State has rejected them. They have been defeated everywhere except California, so far.
Back to the California Campaign…
If you are on the internet at all, in the world that discusses these kinds of issues, you couldn’t help but stumble over the bragging about how great the RALLY was in Sacramento, the day before the meeting of the Senate Health committee, for the SB277 campaign. There was famous Bobby Kennedy Jr, right there talking about the issue on the Capitol Steps.. Eric Gladen brought his terrific movie “Trace Amounts.”
But, as the “No on SB277” groups found out, a RALLY is NOT the same thing as dealing with a legislature. FAR from it. Even if the RALLY was on the Capitol Steps. While all of them (2,800)were out there, on the steps, on camera with Bobby Kennedy, Jr., Pharma lobbyists were inside, in the Senate offices, stuffing hundred dollar bills into Senatorial coat pockets, so to speak. Guess who’s tactic worked? The vote was 6-2-1 against you, people.
Stuffing hundred dollar bills? Yup – keep reading.
Then, the next day, there was the Senate Health Committee meeting on SB277. To me the “No on SB277” organizing committee treated the hearing like it was an afterthought to the RALLY. Freshman Senator Richard Pan MD introduced his bill to the Committee, lying, prevaricating, obfuscating, and propagandizing, continuously throughout his presentation, and nobody called him on it.
NOBODY CALLED HIM ON IT!
Pan, at first, said that Merck’s MMR vaccine was “perfectly safe.” Perfectly safe? The MMR package insert, itself, is eighty (80) pages long, documenting the MMR problems. And, it went on from there. My friend Sherry Tenpenny MD has a library of close to seven thousand (7,000) peer-reviewed studies, from all over Planet Earth, on vaccines that show how dangerous they are.
In short, it looks to me like Pan lied, as described above, to the Health Committee to get their votes. In California that’s called “Fraud.” I know 100 people who could take Pan’s testimony apart, and help write a formal complaint to the Senate Ethics Committee, the Attorney General’s Office, and the Chairman of the Senate Health Committee.
But, let’s get to the meat, right now….
California Fair Political Practice Act (FPPC) Violations?
The really serious problem, with certain Senators, lies in campaign contributions, specifically from Merck, and the astroturf organizations, that pass-through money from Merck (and other big pharma operations) to Pan and others. There is undeniable evidence of this happening. California’s Fair Political Practices Act is very specific on this subject. For instance, right at the beginning of the Act it says (pay special attention to the bolded sections):
§ 81001. Findings and Declarations. The people find and declare as follows: (a) State and local government should serve the needs and respond to the wishes of all citizens equally, without regard to their wealth; (b) Public officials, whether elected or appointed, should perform their duties in an impartial manner, free from bias caused by their own financial interests or the financial interests of persons who have supported them;
Then it goes on to say, under Chapter Seven – Conflict of Interest:
§ 87100. Public Officials; State and Local. No public official at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use his official position to influence a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial interest. (see definition financial interest below)
§ 87102.5. Legislature; Use of Position to Influence Decisions. (a) The remedies provided in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 83100) shall apply to any Member of the Legislature who makes, participates in making, or in any way attempts to use his or her official position to influence any of the following governmental decisions in which he or she knows or has reason to know that he or she has a financial interest: (1) Any state governmental decision, other than any action or decision before the Legislature, made in the course of his or her duties as a member. (2) Approval, modification, or cancellation of any contract to which either house or a committee of the Legislature is a party. (3) Introduction as a lead author of any legislation that the member knows or has reason to know is nongeneral legislation. (4) Any vote in a legislative committee or subcommittee on what the member knows or has reason to know is nongeneral legislation. (5) Any rollcall vote on the Senate or Assembly floor on an item which the member knows is nongeneral legislation.
§ 91003.5. Conflicts of Interest Violation. Any person who violates a provision of Article 2 (commencing with Section 87200), 3 (commencing with Section 87300), or 4.5 (commencing with Section 87450) of Chapter 7 is subject to discipline by his or her agency, including dismissal, consistent with any applicable civil service or other personnel laws, regulations and procedures.
What constitutes ” Financial Interest” under the Act?
§ 87103. Financial Interest. A public official has a financial interest in a decision within the meaning of Section 87100 if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect, distinguishable from its effect on the public generally, on the official, a member of his or her immediate family, or on any of the following: (a) Any business entity in which the public official has a direct or indirect investment worth two thousand dollars ($2,000) or more. (b) Any real property in which the public official has a direct or indirect interest worth two thousand dollars ($2,000) or more. (c) Any source of income, except gifts or loans by a commercial lending institution made in the regular course of business on terms available to the public without regard to official status, aggregating five hundred dollars ($500) or more in value provided or promised to, received by, the public official within 12 months prior to the time when the decision is made. (d) Any business entity in which the public official is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or holds any position of management. (e) Any donor of, or any intermediary or agent for a donor of, a gift or gifts aggregating two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or more in value provided to, received by, or promised to the public official within 12 months prior to the time when the decision is made. The amount of the value of gifts specified by this subdivision shall be adjusted biennially by the Commission to equal the same amount determined by the Commission pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 89503.
What constitutes “nongeneral legislation?”
§ 87102.6. Nongeneral Legislation; Definitions. (a) “Nongeneral legislation” means legislation as to which both of the following apply: (1) It is reasonably foreseeable that the legislation will have direct and significant financial impact on one or more identifiable persons, or one or more identifiable pieces of real property. (2) It is not reasonably foreseeable that the legislation will have a similar impact on the public generally or on a significant segment of the public. (b) For purposes of this section and Section 87102.5, all of the following apply: (1) “Legislation” means a bill, resolution, or constitutional amendment. (2) “Public generally” includes an industry, trade, or profession. (3) Any recognized subgroup or specialty of the industry, trade, or profession constitutes a significant segment of the public. (4) A legislative district, county, city, or special district constitutes a significant segment of the public. (5) More than a small number of persons or pieces of real property is a significant segment of public. (6) Legislation, administrative action, or other governmental action impacts in a similar manner all members of the public, or all members of a significant segment of the public, on which it has a direct financial effect, whether or not the financial effect on individual members of the public or the significant segment of the public is the same as the impact on the other members of the public or the significant segment of the public. (7) The Budget Bill as a whole is not nongeneral legislation. (8) Legislation that contains at least one provision that constitutes nongeneral legislation is nongeneral legislation, even if the legislation also contains other provisions that are general and do not constitute nongeneral legislation.
Why is this important?
Now we are going to talk, once again, about “Controlled Opposition” tactics. It seems that a person, using an internet name “Saku,” posted an article on the “Our Kids – Our Choice” FaceBook page that got A LOT of interest, at first.. It was called “We The People…” In that article Saku outlined Merck’s contributions to California legislators and how they related to California’s Fair Political Practice Act. Just below I will give you the link to the article. Read it all. But before you do, let me point out two things significant. (1) Up above I had said “While all of them were out there, on the steps, on camera with Bobby Kennedy, Jr., Pharma lobbyists were inside, in the Senate offices, stuffing hundred dollar bills into Senatorial coat pockets, so to speak. Guess who’s tactic worked? The vote was 6-2-1 against you, people.”
Well, I wasn’t joking, nor exaggerating, for effect. In Saku’s article scroll down to the section that shows the Senate Health Committee highlighted in green and yellow. Pay close attention to the fact that those that got bags of money from Merck voted “Yes on SB277.” And Saku wasn’t counting “astroturf” money. What’s “astroturf” money? The California Fair Political Practices Commission calls this practice “Political Money Laundering.” it is where someone like Merck gives 500 million dollars to an astroturf organization they caused to be formed called something like “Citizens for Vaccines Stabbed into Eyeballs,” who then gives 450 million dollars to a created second group, to a third group, then to scumbags like SB277 author Richard Pan, either directly, or indirectly through a PAC. Remember that Pan had 4.6 million spent ON him by outsiders during his Senate election campaign?
You can read Saku’s article by clicking here.
(2) Saku’s article DISAPPEARED from “Our Kids Our Choice” FaceBook page overnight. I’m told that anyone who questioned or complained about that was removed from the page also.
I Questioned who this “Saku” person was, and what was her source of information…
She came back with a surprising answer. She said “I got it from Merck…” Specifically, she got it from here, and places like this.
So, What’s happening?
I don’t write much stuff without checking it out first. So, I am backtracking the information. Do I think there are California FPPC violations? Yup. Enough to cause some serious political harm to certain California Senators? Yup. And, even more “yup.”
I’ve been corresponding with top people at the California FPPC. I started by asking two simple questions, quoting the Fair Political Practice Act sections I included above.
(1) Are there any circumstances where a California legislator is allowed to author legislation that benefits a major campaign contributor?
(2) Are there any circumstances where a California legislator is allowed to vote on legislation that benefits a major campaign contributor?
The Bottom Line…
The “No on SB277” bunch, the RIGHT bunch, is organizing things now. Things got VERY interesting in the Senate Education Committee, with the pointed questions to the then stuttering, and stammering, Pan, and the delayed vote to give Pan time to answer.. My guess – Pan is going to pull the bill to try to save himself.
If it gets through Senate Education, then it goes to “Judicial” which will ask the obvious question “Pan, you dumb s***, are you on crack? How. exactly, in your convoluted brain, do you think this proposed law of yours, to claim OWNERSHIP of California’s children by the State, ignoring the State and Federal Constitutions, is going to meet legal challenges?”
Things are about to get EVEN MORE interesting…
Stay tuned.
Tim Bolen – Consumer Advocate
– See more at: http://www.bolenreport.com/autism/antivaccine%20yes6.htm#sthash.cK48J5Ax.dpuf