San Francisco, CA – United SF Freedom Alliance, an alliance on behalf of San Francisco city employees filed, with the support of America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS), a Complaint to challenge the city-wide mandates that all city employees must be vaccinated or face termination. The filing includes eight named plaintiffs who have been outspoken as to the injustice of the city’s coercive tactics.
The plaintiffs filed their Complaint on Thursday, in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Francisco. This filing against the city will have impact on over 37,000 employees, many of whom have already been vaccinated, but who may face future discrimination due to “booster” shots. For those who have not taken the shot, and been threatened with termination, the Complaint is their chance to retain their jobs and careers, and their medical, religious and constitutional rights.
George Wentz, JD, lead litigator said, “Although there are certain circumstances under which public health policy supports mandating vaccines, those circumstances are not present here. And the law is crystal clear that it is absolutely illegal to mandate an employee’s personal medical treatments.”
While government officials attempt to justify their position with historical smallpox mandate precedents via Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the Complaint stands upon science and logic that Covid-19 is not comparable to smallpox.
“This fact is undeniable,” Attorney Christopher Dunn said on behalf of AFLDS, “Smallpox killed one third of those who were infected. Jacobson, the case often cited for justifying a mandate can clearly be distinguished on this basis, among others. Jacobson is our case. It supports the position that a mandate that involves termination of employment is not appropriate under these circumstances.”
The Complaint also bases its anti-mandate position on the fact that the commonly accepted PCR test is creating a multitude of false-positive results. This is something the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, has made clear. Fauci, in October 30, 2020 stated that a test conducted with a Cycle Threshold (CT) of over 35 is “useless.” The CDC is currently allowing tests up to 40 cycles. The New York Times supports this research and stated that tests over 35 cycles result in a “97% false positive rate.”
The data supporting vaccination effectiveness is equally flawed. ”No scientist can credibly argue that the vaccines stop transmission, infection, or reinfection. In fact, the science shows the opposite is true, as even the CDC admits,” a point Wentz added in support of this latest filing by himself and San Diego attorney John Howard. “Instead, the CDC has stated that the injections only treat symptoms, making an infection less severe. The injections are therefore medical treatments, not vaccines.”
AFLDS Founder, Dr. Simone Gold, a champion of human rights, doctor, and lawyer, herself, has been campaigning throughout the country to share the sobering research of doctors and lawyers brave enough to speak out, “I’m proud to stand with the city of San Francisco employees who have courageously stood up for freedom in this country.”
The Complaint explains to the court, several other mistakes in the Covid mainstream narrative: the asymptomatic spreader myth, the inflated Covid hospitalization rate, and the inflated Covid death rate. Further, it reinforces the fact that Covid has an extremely high survivability rate when treated appropriately. Covid survivors also enjoy robust natural immunity. All of this supports the argument that mandating a Covid vaccination is contrary to public policy, interest, and reason.
Additionally, the Complaint alleges there are valid alternative treatments: Ivermectin is “a cheap, safe, widely available generic medication, whose precursor won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015” and “treats and cures SARS-CoV-2 infection, both while in the early infectious stage and later stages.” Dr. Pierre Kory states, “Ivermectin basically obliterates transmission of this virus…with miraculous effectiveness.”
Wentz adds, “We have brought this case to prevent employers from illegally mandating medical treatment choices for their workers. We are defending the plaintiffs’ right to decide for themselves what medical treatments they choose. Our plaintiffs are humans, not livestock. We are defending their fundamental human right of self-determination.”
The Complaint alleges counts for the violation of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment’s due process clause, the equal protection clause, declaratory and injunctive relief under the California Constitution, declaratory and injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and violation of due process under Skelly v. State Personnel Board.