Noting California Fourth Appellate Court District's lip service to their being bound to the legal requirement to accept as true all claims of fact made by the Plaintiffs in matters that deal with legal pleadings that determine if the merits of the case are even heard, the Petition cites five distortions or substitutions of fact that are not supported by the record, made by the Appellate Court as a basis for their decision, that are contrary to the Plaintiffs claims and thus not permissible.

Each of these distortions or substitutions of fact were necessary for the Appellate Court to rule that all of the controlling legal authorities establishing a citizen's Constitutional right to be free from bodily intrusions do not apply when the means of exposure is the public drinking water.

Attorney Norman Blumenthal points out the absurdity of the Appellate Court's ruling that freedom from harm in the form of medication with an unapproved drug without informed consent is applicable only when delivered by pill or syringe. Blumenthal argues that under the Appellate Court's ruling the recent case denying the Department of Defense's ability to force non-FDA approved Anthrax vaccinations on military personnel without their informed consent could have been circumvented by the DoD merely adding the medication to water.

Citing the Appellate Court's Decision, the Petition for Hearing asserts, "The Court of Appeals held that "the right to be free from forced medication is not a fundamental constitutional right in the context of adding fluoride or other chemicals to the public drinking water." Decision at p. 21. (Emphasis added.)" ... If left standing, the published Decision of the Court of Appeal in this case would surrender, as a matter of law, the power of California courts to judicially review any governmental decision to administer drugs to citizens, so long as the drug delivery system is "the public drinking water."

"The Decision opens the door to the unrestricted mass medical treatment of residents by our government via the public water supply and closes the door to constitutional scrutiny of such conduct by the judiciary. As a result, the Decision surrenders to the prevailing politics of the legislative and executive branches the judiciary's exclusive authority and obligation to protect the public's Constitutional Rights. Without independent judicial scrutiny, the judicial branch becomes a mere rubber stamp for the executive and legislative branches in contravention of our separation of powers doctrine."

It is important to understand that this Petition for Hearing does not assert that citizens can not be medicated through the water supply, but that the Court of Appeals action, if left standing, would prevent any restraint, including provable harm, or arbitrary, capricious or other actions that fulfill no legitimate government concern.

Appellate Court's conversion of their ruling from unpublished to published

The Court of Appeals issued their ruling on August 17 as unpublished. On September 1, Blumenthal filed a Petition for Rehearing with clarification of the same issues presented to the Supreme Court.