Summary of the Appeal in Sansone V. DeSantis mRNA Bioweapons Prohibition Case

GiveSendGo to support this case.

A friend suggested that I make this more accessible. I argue that there are six reversible errors. Below are the bullet points of my appeal arguments, followed by a brief summary of the procedural history of my case, followed by a summary of the arguments I make in my appeal. Click here to read the actual Appellate Brief.

The appeal is based on procedural issues and irregularities, not the merits of the case. These are the bullet points of my appeal:

The Trial Court:

-Violated My Procedural Due Process by Dismissing the Action With Prejudice While My Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction Was Pending and Without Any Hearing.

- Abused Its Discretion by Dismissing With Prejudice Without Granting Me Leave to Amend or Making Any Finding of Futility.

- Violated My Fundamental Fairness by Sua Sponte Dismissing the Action With Prejudice Without Notice, Without a Motion, and Without Findings.

- Sanctions Threat and Refusal to Entertain Further Motions Improperly Chilled My Amendment Rights, and My Amended Complaint Should Have Been Treated as My First Meaningful Amendment.

-The Doctrines of Sovereign Immunity and Separation of Powers Do Not Bar My Action.

- Erred by Improperly Resolving Factual Disputes and Failing to Accept My Well-Pleaded Allegations as True.

- Erred by Prematurely Terminating a Case Presenting Novel Issues of First Impression and Great Public Importance.

Brief Procedural History:

I filed my initial complaint on December 1, 2024. I am seeking an injunction to prohibit the Governor and AG to continue facilitating the distribution of mRNA injections and products in the State of Florida because they are biological and technological weapons of mass destruction. I argue that my heart failure and triple bypass heart surgery in April of 2023 are the result of shedding or involuntary environmental exposure from the shots. I argue Constitutional Rights violations and a violation of Florida’s health freedom law, which prohibits coerced masks, mRNA injections/products and EUA products.

The initial case was dismissed on December 9, 2024, and the motion for rehearing was denied on December 19, 2024. In doing so the trial court threatened me with sanctions and said it would not consider any other motions. This blocked my right to amend my complaint. I appealed my decision immediately in the First District Court of Appeal (1DCA). I won the appeal on November 12, 2025. The 1DCA dismissed my case and said my case was still active in the trial court and I could amend my complaint. They did not reverse and remand because the trial court did not officially dismiss with prejudice. Unofficially it did by threatening sanctions and not entertaining further motions.

I amended my complaint on November 12, 2025. After several motions, on December 11, 2025, I filed an Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and a 3.5 hour evidentiary hearing, where I noted that I was planning to subpoena Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo, M.D., PhD to testify under oath.

The trial court dismissed on December 12, 2025. I filed a motion or rehearing and a supplement with a proposed Second Amended Complaint curing the alleged defect on my complaint. This motion was denied on December 18, 2025. I filed a Notice of Appeal on December 18, 2025. I filed the Appellate Brief 10 days later on December 28, 2025. (yes you know what I was doing on Christmas and Christmas Eve)

Below is a summary of the Standard of Review followed my summaries of each of my six reversable error arguments. (F) is not a reversable error. It is a preemptive section addressing sovereign immunity, separation, of powers, and explaining that States have the power to stop the shots.

A. The standard of Review section:

Standard of Review section of my brief argues that while a dismissal with prejudice is generally reviewed for an “abuse of discretion,” the specific errors committed by the trial court in my case demand a more stringent, non-deferential review. My brief asserts that the core issues, such as whether my complaint states a valid cause of action, whether my procedural due process was violated, and whether the court could dismiss my case sua sponte without notice, are all pure questions of law. For these issues, the standard of review is de novo, meaning the appellate court must decide the matter from scratch, without giving any weight to the trial court’s conclusions.

Furthermore, my brief clarifies that even the “abuse of discretion” standard is sharply limited here. It argues that dismissing my complaint with prejudice without making a specific finding that any further amendment would be futile constitutes reversible error as a matter of law. It also frames the trial court’s failure to provide me notice and an opportunity to be heard as a fundamental error, a severe type of error that can be corrected on appeal even if it wasn’t formally objected to in the trial court. In essence, my brief strategically frames the trial court’s actions not as simple judgment calls, but as legal and procedural violations that require the appellate court to conduct a fresh and independent review.

B. The Trial Court Violated My Procedural Due Process by Dismissing the Action With Prejudice While My Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction Was Pending and Without Any Hearing.

The trial court dismissed my case with prejudice while my fully-briefed Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction remained pending and undecided. This motion contained my sworn evidence of imminent and irreparable harm to me personally, including my documented left ventricular ejection fraction of 15-20%, which medical literature establishes carries a 74% three-year mortality rate. By dismissing the case without first ruling on this emergency motion presenting evidence of life-threatening harm, the trial court violated my fundamental right to procedural due process. The court deprived me of the opportunity to have my emergency motion heard and decided on its merits before terminating the case with finality.

C. The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion by Dismissing With Prejudice Without Granting Me Leave to Amend or Making Any Finding of Futility.

The trial court committed two distinct violations of Florida law in this regard. First, under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a), I possessed an absolute right to amend my complaint once as a matter of course because the defendants had never filed a responsive pleading. The trial court’s sua sponte dismissal with prejudice improperly extinguished this statutory right. Second, even if amendment were discretionary rather than absolute, binding First District Court of Appeal precedent in Florida National Organization for Women, Inc. v. State requires a trial court to make specific findings before dismissing with prejudice: either that the plaintiff has abused the amendment privilege, that amendment would prejudice the opposing party, or that the complaint is clearly not amendable. The trial court made none of these required findings. I demonstrated curability by submitting a detailed Proposed Second Amended Complaint with my motion for rehearing, yet the court dismissed with prejudice without explanation or analysis.

D. The Trial Court Violated My Fundamental Fairness by Sua Sponte Dismissing the Action With Prejudice Without Notice, Without a Motion, and Without Findings.

The trial court dismissed my case sua sponte, on its own initiative, without any motion to dismiss having been filed by the defendants, without providing me notice that dismissal with prejudice was being contemplated, and without affording me any opportunity to be heard on the issue. Recent controlling authority from the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Weeks v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co. establishes that sua sponte dismissal with prejudice without notice violates due process and constitutes fundamental error reviewable on appeal even if not preserved below. The Weeks ccase held that it was a due process violation for a trial court to sua sponte dismiss a case with prejudice without providing specific notice of its intent to do so. The trial court’s order denying rehearing compounded this violation by categorically refusing to reconsider the dismissal, declaring all other motions moot, and closing the file without providing any corrective process.

E. The Trial Court’s Sanctions Threat and Refusal to Entertain Further Motions Improperly Chilled My Amendment Rights, and My Amended Complaint Should Have Been Treated as My First Meaningful Amendment.

The procedural history of this case reveals that I was effectively denied a meaningful opportunity to amend my complaint. Following the trial court’s first dismissal in December 2024, the court expressly warned that no further motions would be entertained and threatened sanctions, creating a de facto prohibition on amendment. This directive operated as a sanctions threat that signaled any attempt to seek amendment or further relief would be summarily rejected. When I sought appellate review, the First District Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the ground that the case remained active in the trial court and that amendment remained procedurally available. The appellate court necessarily recognized that the trial court’s order had not extinguished my right to amend and that further proceedings, including amendment, were procedurally proper. Against that backdrop, my Amended Complaint filed on November 12, 2025, must be understood as my first meaningful opportunity to amend following clarification from the appellate court. The trial court’s subsequent dismissal with prejudice, without leave to amend and without a futility finding, violated both Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190 and the First District’s implicit recognition that amendment remained available.

F. The Doctrines of Sovereign Immunity and Separation of Powers Do Not Bar My Action.

Sovereign immunity and separation of powers. Neither doctrine bars this suit. My action seeks only prospective declaratory and injunctive relief against state officers to enjoin ongoing violations of Florida law and the Florida Constitution. The Florida Supreme Court has clearly established in Department of Revenue v. Kuhnlein and Department of Education v. Lewis that sovereign immunity does not bar actions for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging unconstitutional statutes or executive action. When a plaintiff sues a state officer to enjoin unconstitutional conduct, the suit is not considered to be against the state itself. Furthermore, this action does not present a nonjusticiable political question. I do not ask the court to make public health policy, but rather to determine whether the defendants’ conduct exceeds constitutional limits. Determining the legality of executive action is a core judicial function. Additionally, federal regulation of pharmaceuticals does not preempt this action. While the federal government has authority to approve drugs for interstate commerce, states retain their traditional and broad police powers to protect the health and safety of their citizens, including the authority to regulate, restrict, or prohibit the distribution of products within the state if harmful, even when federally approved.

G. The Trial Court Erred by Improperly Resolving Factual Disputes and Failing to Accept My Well-Pleaded Allegations as True.

The trial court justified its dismissal by labeling my Amended Complaint’s allegations as “general, vague, and conclusory.” This characterization improperly resolves factual disputes, which is forbidden at the pleading stage. On a motion to dismiss, the court must confine its review to the four corners of the complaint and accept all my well-pleaded allegations as true. The trial court cannot speculate whether the allegations are true or whether I have the ability to prove them. My Amended Complaint contained numerous specific, ultimate facts, including my precise medical diagnosis (a left ventricular ejection fraction of 15-20%), the incorporation by reference of sworn expert affidavits, and facts contained in the Initial Complaint and the prior appellate record. The trial court dismissed my allegations of shedding/transmission and involuntary environmental exposure as conclusory, yet these allegations are supported by peer-reviewed scientific studies showing mRNA present in seminal fluid long after injection and mRNA in 50% of unvaccinated women. The court dismissed my allegations of irreparable harm as conclusory, yet they are supported by my own echocardiogram reports and peer-reviewed studies showing 74% three-year mortality for my condition. The court dismissed my characterization of mRNA products as biological weapons as conclusory, yet it is supported by the sworn affidavit of Dr. Francis Boyle, the very law professor who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. By dismissing these specific allegations as “conclusory,” the trial court failed to accept my well-pleaded allegations as true and instead improperly weighed the evidence.

H. The Trial Court Erred by Prematurely Terminating a Case Presenting Novel Issues of First Impression and Great Public Importance.

My case presents issues of first impression and exceptional public importance concerning the intersection of constitutional rights, Florida’s statutory health-freedom protections, and the State’s authorization and facilitation of novel biological and technological mechanisms alleged to pose irreversible risks to medically vulnerable individuals and the public at large. The Florida Supreme Court has recognized that certification of questions of great public importance is “particularly applicable to decisions... of first impression,” especially where the issues have “far-reaching consequences” affecting parties statewide. This case raises novel and significant questions about the application of Florida’s liberal amendment policy and emergency-injunction procedures in the context of allegations that a state-facilitated medical intervention constitutes a biological and technological weapons of mass destruction. The trial court erred by dismissing such a case of great public importance without allowing for any evidentiary development or a hearing on the merits. Complex and novel issues should not be dismissed at the pleading stage without the benefit of discovery, expert testimony, and full adversarial testing of the claims.

Specifically, I argue violations of:

(1) Article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (procedural and substantive due process); (2) Article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution (privacy and bodily integrity); and (3) Article I, section 2 of the Florida Constitution (inalienable rights to life and security of person). As well as § 381.00316(1)(a) which is Florida’s Health freedom law which prohibits forced masks, mRNA injection, or EUA products. I argue that involuntary shedding or involuntary environmental exposure is de facto coerced or forced vaccination as it can’t be avoided. This poses a risk to everybody, especially those with pre existing health conditions.

Finally, I request that the 1DCA Reverse and Remand with instructions and reassign the case to another judge, partly due to procedural irregularities and partly due to the Jones V. Dept Health and Ladapo case. The judge inv the decision said that there was no evidence of the State of Florida mishandling the COVID response etc. This may pose a problem if predetermined perspective exists involving the same subject matter and participants.

GiveSendGo to support this case.

Dr. Joseph Sansone is a psychotherapist opposed to psychopathic authoritarianism.

Mind Matters and Everything Else is 100% independent. If you appreciate my writing and advocacy and would like to support it, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or making a donation of any amount. Donations may be sent c/o Joseph Sansone, 27499 Riverview Center Boulevard, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134, United States, or make an online donation on Ko-Fi or donate Bitcoin.