Attorney Takes On the State of California and SB277: First Amendment Rights Have Been Clearly Violated

By Denver Valenti

One Radio Network

On June 30, 2015, Governor Brown of California signed SB277 for mandatory vaccines which has been set to go into effect on July 1, 2016.The bill was prompted by the 2014 Disneyland measles outbreak and historically low levels of vaccination in some California schools. This law removes all exemptions: religious, medical, and philosophical. However, attorney T. Matthew Phillips believes the first amendment allows parents to exercise religion in the face of state-mandated vaccinations. He also says that children have a constitutional right to go to school, regardless of medical procedures. Ultimately a judge will decide which is more important: educating kids or vaccinating them.

Will mandatory vaccination for adults be next? Will 49 other states then require mandatory vaccination? We’re teetering on a slippery slope on what could be required for the greater good. First amendment rights were established to restrain the majority trying to subdue the rights of the individual. Look at what happened in Nazi Germany.

This is the only law suit that has been filed against the issue and has gotten no media attention. Please listen to the podcast below or browse the transcript and pass this link around to as many as you know.

The camel’s nose is under the tent. Which rights will be taken next?
matthew phillips, attorney at law, the first amendment and mandatory vaccines

TRANSCRIPT

5/24/16 One Radio Network show. Patrick Timpone interview with T. Matthew Phillips, Attorney at Law, The First Amendment and Mandatory Vaccines.

Patrick: On June 30, 2015, about a year ago, Governor Brown of California signed SB277 for mandatory vaccines. Set to go into effect on July 1. This law removes all exemptions. However, attorney T. Matthew Phillips believes the first amendment allows parents to exercise religion in the face of state-mandated vaccinations. Also he says that children have a constitutional right to go to school, regardless of medical procedures. Ultimately a judge will decide which is more important, educating kids or vaccinating them. In California is Matthew Phillips, attorney. Mr. Phillips, good morning.

Matthew: Good morning, and thank you so much for having me on your show. I wanted to say that you made the case perfectly. You stated it perfectly, so I am very impressed.

Patrick: Thanks. Mr. Phillips, you’re an attorney at law, what kind of cases do you normally do?

Matthew: Long story short, I’m an attorney in California and I’ve done all sorts of cases. I’ve been fortunate to have done a variety of lawsuits. But I really enjoy doing constitutional law, particularly the first amendment. I had a case just last year, a first amendment case, where some clients of mine from California, some animal rights activists, were in Utah. And they were on a public roadway and they photographed a pig farm. But in Utah, it’s a felony and they want to make you a terrorist for photographing any kind of farm, because the corporations are afraid that the activists may take these photographs and put them on the internet and then embarass the Tyson chickens and so forth. So we were successful in that case, and I really enjoy doing the first amendment, and I do believe this SB277, the vaccination law in California, the mandatory vaccination law in California, I do believe it’s unconstitutional. It does not fly with the Bill of Rights. It absolutely, positively violates the first amendment. And the reason that is is because the first amendment says we have the right to freedom of religion. Specifically, the right to freely exercise religion. It’s not merely a case of well, I can hold these personal beliefs and keep them to myself. But we get to actively exercise those beliefs. And I believe that my clients have a right to exercise their first amendment freedom of religion in face of the state mandated vaccinations. And we’re confident we will prevail.

Patrick: Freedom of religion would mean if your religion would say something like, maybe if something could harm you, you shouldn’t do it. That kind of thing.

Matthew: Well, that is certainly part of it. When we say freedom of religion, I think the word religion encompasses more broadly all those personal beliefs that are unique to all of us. It may be a religious belief. For example, a Catholic person may say I don’t want aborted fetal cells injected into my child. And that’s a perfectly legitimate objection. And in California, parents have been able to assert that objection for well over 50 years, saying that if they don’t want vaccinations, the reason is routed in religion. Or it could be a philosophic objection. It could be something like I don’t believe in this concept of herd immunity, as it were, and therefore, from a philosophical standpoint, I demur, I object to this. And there also may be more broad lifestyle type of objection, that nevertheless do fall within the ambit of religion, simply because religion is broadly defined as a way of life. For example, I would look at someone who’s a vegan. They don’t eat animal products or wear animal products. And so a vegan may say I object to having animal products injected into my child. But regardless of what it is, everybody has a right to assert their personal unique objection based on their personal beliefs, because it’s a free country and I am confident we’re going to prevail.

Patrick: So it could even be as simple as, in my religion or spiritual path, I am encouraged and it’s kind of like the law, to keep our body as long as we can out of respect for God. Whatever. And then we say, well then, it’s proven that mercury can be hazardous to our health, so I don’t want to take the vaccine because it’s got mercury in it, and so that’s a religious exemption.

Matthew: Absolutely. And I think you’ve hit the nail squarely on the head. I’ve heard it said that way, where a parent might say that I believe that immunization already comes to my child naturally and my child’s body is a temple. I don’t wish to violate it or penetrate it with any foreign objects. Least of all a syringe, it causes childhood trauma. And that is a legitimate objection. And again, I think we’re going to prevail because the first amendment is constitutional in magnitude. It’s the Bill of Rights. And there’s just not a sufficiently compelling interest for the state of California. There was this supposed measles outbreak at Disneyland, but that was mainly the media just fanning flames. There’s no real public health crisis in California. And no reason, therefore, to suspend the constitution.

Patrick: T. Matthew Phillips, attorney in California. He’s filed a lawsuit. We’ll talk more about it. I’ll read this for you, just in case. It’s been a while.

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That’s a good one. Got a lot there.

Matthew: It certainly is. The first amendment really is a grab bag of rights. Of course there’s freedom of speech there, the right to peaceably assemble, but specifically with respect to religion, there are two hemispheres, if you will. There’s the prohibition on the government establishing a religion, a so-called establishment clause. And then there’s the free exercise clause about which we’ve been speaking today. And that’s of course the right of the people to freely exercise their religion to worship the Great Spirit as they see fit.

Patrick: So the lawsuit is against – who did you file against?

Matthew: The lawsuit names the state of California as the defendant.

Patrick: The state of California. So they got a lot of money and whatever. So they’re going to have a lot of attorneys against you. Are you going to do this just kind of on your own? Just go for it?

Matthew: Basically, yes. I’m a sole practitioner and I am the functional and legal equivalent of 300 Spartans.

Patrick: I’m sorry?

Matthew: I said I am the functional and legal equivalent of 300 Spartans. Making reference to the movie of the brave defenders many, many years ago in an ancient battle at Thermopylae.

Patrick: So you’re just going to go for it?

Matthew: Yeah. If I could speak to that. Some people, and I’ve heard it said that way, that it may be a Herculean task or a David vs. Goliath situation. But I enjoy being the Goliath in the situation, quite frankly. Because there’s really not much to make in the way of an argument, it’s really not that much in terms of litigation. I think that all people see the issue as being very straightforward. And the issue is simply: do we have a first amendment right that is sufficient to overcome the state’s supposed need to vaccinate everybody? And you had articulated the issue perfectly earlier at the beginning of the show, because when it comes right down to it, a judge will have to decide wherein lay the greater interest for the state of California. Is the greater interest in vaccinating our children or educating our children. And I will say this. The law is set to go into effect on July 1. And God forbid if it does, we are going to have a de facto segregated school system. And when I say segregated school system, I’m saying that in the sense of Brown vs. Board of Education, the 1954 case that said segregation separate but equal, that’s unlawful. Now we know that the separate but equal argument arises in a racial context, black and white. But in California, if they start forbidding children to go to school, well know you have two separate school systems. One vaxxed and one unvaxxed. And that will violate the central thesis, if you will, of Brown vs. Board of Education. Because in California, discrimination based on medical status is every bit as unlawful as discrimination based on race. As we see with the school systems, for example, in the old south, and drinking fountains and so forth.

Patrick: When did you file the suit?

Matthew: This lawsuit was filed, I think it was April 22. And the state of California will be responding, the Attorney General’s office, on or before I think it’s June 9.

Patrick: They have five or six weeks?

Matthew: 30 days in California.

Patrick: 30 business days.

Matthew: Correct.

Patrick: Can a judge in your opinion say, well this whole thing, we just got to take care of it, so I think the greater good is to vaccinate the kids. But that would be abhorrent to the constitution, in your opinion, and then you’d have to appeal and go further.

Matthew: A judge could yes, say that. And we’d have to respect what the court says, obviously. And if my clients would wish to appeal it, we certainly would consider that. But I try to look at this in context. I’m a big advocate of the second amendment. I believe that we all have a right to keep and bear arms. And if we look at it with a second amendment hypothetical, let’s say in California or in Texas. I know they had a Gardisil law that Rick Perry had passed a while back. To me, it smacks of the same thing, where we just see overreaching influence from the corporations who want to sell their product, like all corporations do. And then they use the state to be the enforcement bureau and force everybody to buy their product. I think that’s totally wrong. But let’s say in Texas, they passed a law that says in order for you to buy a gun, you have to get 96 federally mandated vaccinations. Essentially they put 96 syringes between a Texan and his or her constitutional right to keep and bear. Now I think everybody would see that as a flagrant violation of the second amendment. Because a state cannot put any conditions on a fundamental constitutional right. And we know that freedom of religion is a fundamental constitutional right. As is the children’s right to go to school. That is a constitutional right. The constitutional right to a free public education. Now I hope I don’t sound Bernie Sanders in saying that, and I’m trying to be a little bit humorous. You may know I have some sense of humor at least. But the point is that it is a constitutional right for the children to have a free public education. And we believe it’s simply unconstitutional to put 96 syringes between the children and their constitutional right to go to school. It’s that simple. I think we made our argument already. I believe we will win the lawsuit based solely on the strength of the complaint itself. I know that these arguments have been bandied about by many attorneys. I’ve been following this matter for quite some time. I’ve read every scholarly piece by every scholarly attorney, and everyone has the same opinion. And mine totally aligns. This mandatory vaccination law violates the first amendment rights of the parents, and also with regard to the children, their constitutional right to go to school. And if it does, God forbid, come to pass on July 1, it will create an unlawful discriminated separate but equal school system. And to put it in more stark terms, on July 1, the state will begin random execution of school aged children. There’s really no other way to say it. Because we know vaccines kill. Vaccines cause autism. Vaccines paralyze. It happens all the time. You just don’t hear about it on the media. If a child dies in a car accident, they’ll tell you on the 6:00 news. A three year old girl died in a traffic collision. But if they die of a vaccine accident, you’d never hear about it. And the truth is, vaccines kill.

Patrick: T. Matthew Phillips, attorney in California. His website is called RevoltRevokeRestore.com. That’s clever. I’m curious, where does it say in the constitution that children have a right to free education? I’ve never seen that one.

Matthew: That is a terrific question. Thank you for asking that. It’s actually in the California constitution. I think it was about 1876 they came up with it. But it’s a California constitutional right. And so, because it’s in the California constitution, it is ipso facto a fundamental right. It is in fact on par, and just as strong, as those rights mentioned in the federal constitution. That’s the concept with that there. But in some states, it may not be a constitutional right. But it is in California. So that’s where it derives.

Patrick: I thought if there were one state, that it would have to be good everywhere.

Matthew: I have to believe that all 50 states, by now, have somewhere in their constitution a mandate that all children go to public school free of charge to get a minimum level of requisite education by age 18 and so forth.

Patrick: So who is behind this thing anyway?

Matthew: Who is behind this thing? Well let me tell you. You mentioned the RevoltRevokeRestore. It’s very clever, but actually I didn’t make it up. That’s the website of my clients. There’s a terrific woman out in Temecula, California by the name of Sharon Brown. And there’s also seven other folks out in California. I represent eight people from southern California and northern California. They are eight people that earnestly wish to live vaccine free. We believe that vaccines are not the way to go. We are proud anti-vaxxers. We know that’s become a heretical word, to say that, but I wish to say it again. I am an anti-vaxxer. On a very personal level, I stand beside my client. On a very personal level, I object to vaccines, all of them. I believe all vaccines are a hoax. None of them work. The notion of immunization is a total hoax. And these are my personal beliefs. But in addition to that, as an advocate, as an officer of the court, I intend to make the first amendment argument and the California constitution argument, and I am confident we will prevail.

Patrick: So would this have to be decided in California, since you’re working on the constitution, or could it go all the way to the Supreme Court?

Matthew: That’s a very good question. Right now, it’s in California, in the downtown L.A. county courthouse, and it will affect California. If one of the parties loses, in fact both parties can appeal, but we could appeal it to the Sacremento Supreme Court, meaning the California Supreme Court. Or it could be appealed, you’re correct, to the United States Supreme Court. But either one is possible at this point. But we are confident that the case will go rather quickly. Because right now the burden of proof is on the state of California. Ordinarily, when a plaintiff brings a lawsuit, the plaintiff has the burden of proof. We may hear this in Hollywood movies in a criminal context. For example, The People vs. OJ, that case comes to mind. The people have the burden of proof. They have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and so forth. But in a case like this, ordinarily the plaintiffs wold have the burden of proving that which they’re alleging. But because of the nature of this case, because it impacts constitutional rights, the burden of proof shifts to the other side. Meaning the state of California has the burden of proof. And what is that burden of proof? What must the California government prove? Well they have to prove that there is a compelling interest in the purpose that underlies SB277. And the purpose is total immunization. Let me give that to you again. Straight out of SB277, they use the words total immunization. I’m paraphrasing, but it says basically, it is the goal of the state of California to achieve total immunization of school age children. It’s kind of scary, because the scope is so Orwellian to begin with. But I fear, and likewise my clients fear, that if they have mandatory vaccination for the children, then next it’s going to be mandatory vaccination for the adults. And then after that, the other 49 dominoes will fall, and if they can purposely inject fluids into your body, I would reasonably anticipate the law would allow them to forcibly withdraw fluids from your body, and we’re going to see mandatory blood draws before very long, in addition to mandatory vaccination. It will probably have mandatory organ transplants, mandatory organ withdrawal in the name of the great good. You know, I have to say, whenever I hear the term “the greater good”, I always see a Nazi flag. The swastika. Every single time, because that argument, the greater good, it may sound patriotic, it sounds democratic, because when we vote, the guy who gets the most votes wins. Except if you’re Al Gore, but that’s another story. But the whole point is that it sounds good, the greater good, but in truth, it’s a slippery slope, because 60-70 years ago in Germany, they were throwing folks in the oven based on the greater good. And we see the same philosophy going on right on, that individuals have to sacrifice of themselves to give to the group. And we have to remember that the Bill of Rights was purposely set up to restrain the majority, to restrain them from trying to subdue the rights of the individuals. And as a liberal from Hollywood, California, I believe that that’s something we can’t allow to happen. Actually, I consider myself a free-thinker. I didn’t mean to use the word liberal. But I’m trying to have a sense of humor.

Patrick: So it’s really strange to me, Mr. Phillips, that with all the health conscious people, I mean there’s more natural food stores in California probably than anywhere, and you can actually get raw milk in the store, which is pretty curious, that this is the only … are you the only lawsuit out there?

Matthew: Yes, we are the only lawsuit out there. There’s been lots of grumblings about potential lawsuits and saber rattling, but I doubt very seriously it will happen. Because from what I’m seen, and this could be a separate show in itself. But from what I’ve seen, there’s a lot of influence from the pharmaceutical industry and the vaccine makers in particular. And of course I refer to Merck, Pfizer, Abbott Industry and GlaxoSmithKline. And they have boots on the ground, and they have people on Facebook with Facebook accounts pretending to be vaccine warriors. And they have people pretending to be vaccine warriors that get their house broken into, to try to silence people from rising up and filing lawsuits. And I have to say, for what it’s worth, that VAXXED movie, we’ve heard a lot about this VAXXED movie. In my opinion, that’s nothing but black PR, as it were, black propaganda concerning this whole vaccine issue. The reason I say that is people would normally think, wait a second, you sound like your anti-vaccination, and that movie is supposed to be anti-vaccination. Why would you criticize it? Well, I criticize it because the movie is intellectually dishonest. When they talk about the greed and corruption at the CDC and they raise the issue, do vaccines cause autism, that’s terrific and stuff, but at the end of the movie, they conclude that well, maybe we should call for safer vaccines. Well, my clients don’t believe in safer vaccines. My clients didn’t file this lawsuit to have a more attenuated vaccination schedule because they believe in delaying vaccinations. That’s not what this is about. This is about the right to live vaccine free. And my clients firmly believe this, as do I. And that’s why I stand beside them. But going back to your original question, we are the only lawsuit. And, you know what’s also interesting, is there is absolutely no media coverage. There is a 100% complete media blackout. We cannot get one word or one story about this lawsuit. And I’m talking about a lawsuit that affects 38 million people and their children. But we can’t get one word on CBS, ABC, NBC, Huffington Post, Reuter’s, or Al Jazeera, or the San Francisco Chronicle, the L.A. Times, the Orange County Register, the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Not one word. And the reason that is, is because all media outlets are beholden to the pharmaceutical industry. Every commercial on TV, all night long, side effects may include, ask your doctor about this, if once a day so and so is right for you. These media outlets get so much ad revenue, so much ad revenue that they cannot broadcast the story of the liberation lawsuit. And we thank you, my clients thank you sincerely and earnestly, from the bottom of their hearts, for letting us have the opportunity to announce this. Because we hope all free-thinking people will rise up, all Christian people, all people of conscience, all people of all faiths and all religions, whether that by Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, if I forget any religion, please forgive me. We need to wake people up and we hope our lawsuit will do it.

Patrick: Well said. Fair enough. Before we go though, I’m scratching my head here, not because I have lice or anything, but it’s difficult for me to imagine, Mr. Phillips, that there are all of these people that, probably millions, that have never given their kids vaccines in California, because of their beliefs, are just kind of sitting by waiting for July 1, and they’re going to let them vaccinate their kids? I don’t know, I don’t know what’s going on with that.

Matthew: It’s kind of weird, and let me speak to that. This is kind of a societal thing. But yes, California is … I’m a tree hugger, I’m a vegan, I’m one of those people, tofu pizza, other foods, and that kind of stuff. And it does sadden me, because California has turned into Naziland, where Dianne Feinstein, her wisdom, and Jerry Brown, it’s basically … he’s a tyrant. There’s no other way to say it. His father was governor for two terms in the 50s and 60s, and then Jerry Brown, the current governor, he himself was a two term governor in the 70s and 80s. Then he went on to be mayor of Oakland, for fun I guess. The he went on to be the California attorney general. And now, he’s another two term California governor. At some point, and I think that’s the problem, because when you have institutionalized leaders, it’s too easy to them to be corrupted by the influence of big business. And at the end of the day, that’s what this is all about. If your last name was Nike, for example, and the Texas legislature said all school age kids going to school got to be wearing Nikes, well you could charge whatever you want. And to sweeten the deal, what if Congress passed a law that said nobody could sue Nike. Well you could sell Nikes for however much money you want. If somebody slips and falls in the Nike, you don’t have to worry about the personal injuries on the park bench advertising. The whole point is that it’s fascism. There’s no other way to say it. I don’t mean to sound too extremist, but if we look historically Benito Mussolini gave us the definition for fascism. It’s an unholy alliance of the corporate interests and the government interests. And that’s what we see here. There was maybe a dozen people at Disneyland had a fever and a rash for about a week. Well they give that to the media machine, the same people all night long talking about once a day pills right for you, ask about the butterfly Lunesta, or Vioxx, or Schmioxx, or Viagra, Schmialis, all day long. I don’t watch TV, I don’t know the names of them, but you see them, even somebody likes me gets infected with this advertising. And so that’s the problem. And the media fans those flames. They terrify everybody. And then the vaccine makers give a ton of money to the Sacramento lawmakers. It’s not a bribe. It’s not illegal. It’s called a campaign contribution. And as long as the Sacramento lawmakers are getting campaign contributions from vaccine makers, well, they’re going to pass laws that go for the vaccine makers. We saw this happen 30 years ago. In 1986, Congress got a whole pile of money from the vaccine makers and they passed something called the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. And what that means is, you can’t sue vaccine makers. If people are hearing this for the first time and saying I’ve never heard of that before, it’s because it’s one of the best kept secrets in the legal biz. You cannot sue a vaccine maker. And that’s just because. In contrast here, if you’re in the SUV, and the SUV rolls over, you can sue Ford, you can sue Chevy for a SUV rollover. But if a vaccine rolls over, and your kid dies, you can’t sue Merck, you can’t sue Pfizer, you can’t hold them accountable in front of jury, you can’t file a class action lawsuit, you can’t subpoena documents, you can’t take deposition testimony of the officers and the directors of the corporation. And that’s just fundamentally wrong. We gave up our seventh amendment rights to sue people, and nobody’s challenged it, and we’re stuck with the situation where nobody can sue vaccine makers. Needless to say, in the last 30 years, they’ve tripled the output of vaccines. And why not? Nobody can sue them, it’s all risk, there’s no possible downside. And then they have the state of Texas doing their bidding with the Gardisil, they have Jerry Brown in California doing their bidding with this SB277, and you know what? I fear the day may come, and I hope all good Texans can hear me when I say this, but I fear that the day will come where you have to show your immunization status to get a driver’s license. Then they’re going to have Checkpoint Charlie before you get on the Stemmons Freeway, they’re going to say wait a second, did you get your vaccination? They’re going to pull you out of the car at the checkpoint, they’re going to have five uniformed officers hold you to the ground and the nurse is going to come along with a six inch needle and penetrate you. And they’re going to inject you with whatever they deem necessary. You cannot ask what’s in the vaccine. You have no right to know. And there’s no testing done of any kind whatsoever. It’s the most abhorrent possible thing in the history of abhorrent things. And I don’t mean to sound too inflammatory. But after all, I am a trial lawyer.
Patrick: You are a trial lawyer. We’re hearing stories here and there of late of people actually getting vaccinated when they’re under anesthesia, before they do some kind of surgery. RevoltRevokeRestore.com. Attorney T. Matthew Phillips. On the pharmaceutical thing, on TV, one of my favorites, I don’t have a TV either, but I did see one time, I don’t know where I was, “try our product, we have less major bleeding”. I like that one. Mr. Phillips, you’re very well spoken. I’m sure you’ll do well in court if you ever have to show up. Hopefully this thing will just go away without you having to go in. But I’m sure you’re going to be ready. It’s revolt, revoke, restore. Thanks for your good work, sir, and we appreciate you being on the show. And by the way, we have a world-wide show, it’s not just in Texas, so this will get passed around on Facebook.



Missing Podcast?

If you see an error with an archived podcast or know that an episode of our show is missing, please press the button below to send us a message so we can look into it.

Enter your name and email if you want to be notified when this podcast is fixed:

'Attorney Takes On the State of California and SB277: First Amendment Rights Have Been Clearly Violated' has no comments

Be the first to comment this post!

Would you like to share your thoughts?

Your email address will not be published.

©Copyright One Radio Network 2014 • All rights reserved. Site built by RedLotus AustinThe information on this website and talk shows is solely for informational and entertainment purposes. IT IS NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE MEDICAL ADVICE. Neither the Editors, producers of One Radio Network, Patrick Timpone, their guests or web masters take responsibility for any possible consequences from any treatment, procedure, exercise, dietary modification, action or application of medication which results from reading or following the information contained on this website in written or audio form, live or podcasts. The publication of this information does not constitute the practice of medicine, and this information does not replace the advice of your physician or other health care provider. Before undertaking any course of treatment, the reader must seek the advice of their physician or other health care provider and take total responsibility for his or her actions at all times. Patrick Joseph of the family of Timpone, a man...All rights reserved, without recourse.