Why I am moving forward with my legal case, with snippets from the judge’s Order so you can easily see where this is going.

I am happy to report that I will eagerly move forward with the legal case to clear my name and defend the free speech right of medical practitioners to tell the truth to their patients, especially if it goes against government or medical orthodoxy.

While I paid a high price for doing so, it was the only thing I could have done, and honestly, I have never for a moment regretted it.

Doctors have taken an oath to save lives to the best of their ability. They never took an oath to become agents of government or to be weaponized against their own patients.

That must never happen again, and since I find myself in this position and my case may be influential, I am happy to do my part to make sure it ends NOW.

Centralization within medicine--a system where 78% of doctors are now employees whose livelihood is at risk if they don’t follow orders--is what allowed the medical crimes of the COVID era to occur. Remember that as you choose your doctors.

It is absolutely critical to fight against the Soviet-style use of psychiatry that was employed to silence me and take my license--for the dual purpose of:

a) preventing the public from learning it had other, safer options to respond to the COVID pandemic than what was being offered by the medical and public health establishment, and

b) to frighten the entire medical profession so they would not do what I had done, which was simply to put patients first. Encouraged by the Executive Director of the Maine Medical Board, attorney Dennis Smith, stories about my spreading of alleged “misinformation” were published in major newspapers across the US. Maine Public Radio alone ran 4 stories about the dangerous Dr. Nass.

Children’s Health Defense will support my case (again). Donations to support the case will be gratefully accepted by myself and CHD.

______________

Below, I have selected important passages from Chief Judge [of the US District Court of Maine] Lance Walker’s ORDER regarding my lawsuit against the members of the Maine Medical Board, which will allow you to see where the case is going, without having to read the entire 18 page order.

Dr. Nass’s viewpoints conflict with those asserted in the Board’s position statement and the resources the position statement identified as useful in “support[ing] the fight against Covid-19 misinformation[.]”

On October 10, 2021, Dr. Nass questioned the Board’s authority to investigate a complaint that has nothing to do with the practice of medicine and focused entirely on a statement made in her private life. The Board responded on October 14, 2021:

The basis of the Board’s jurisdiction is that there is alleged unprofessional conduct, particularly where you have communicated in your capacity as a physician in the interview and on the website that could allow patient (sic) and the public to view the information you provide as misleading and/or inaccurate.

Dr. Nass timely responded with a Nebraska Attorney General Opinion Statement that physicians cannot be disciplined for prescribing ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine off-label for treatment of COVID-19. In November 2021, Dr. Nass was invited to speak to the New Hampshire Legislature on pandemic management issues. Dr. Nass provided a copy of her testimony to the Board with a request to identify any “misinformation.” The Board never responded to her request.

In an order dated October 30, 2025, the Superior Court granted Dr. Nass relief on her challenge to the Board’s Psychological Evaluation Order and vacated the Order, finding that the Order was arbitrary and capricious.

A medical licensing board has no need to conduct itself in this manner at all, the contrary is in fact probably indicated and it should always consider whether evidence of mental incompetence is extant. Other Cleavinger factors also militate against absolute immunity. The supposed “function” at issue (a Psychological Evaluation Order based on no evidence or process) does not need to be insulated from the “harassment” of litigation because it simply ought not occur, ever. Id. at 201. Nor were any “safeguards” apparent. Id. Nor is Case 1:23-cv-00321-LEW Document 45 Filed 08/20/26 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 476 15 it evident that the approach taken by Defendants insulated the process from undue “political influence.” Id. To the contrary, political influence would appear to have been the point. Rather than acting as insulation against political influence, Defendants were something like conductors for it... Consequently, for this component of Defendants’ alleged conduct, qualified rather than absolute immunity sets the proper standard.

Dr. Nass observes, however, that her free speech claims present a live controversy because of the harm that has been caused to her by the issuance of the Order and related publicity. Drawing all available inferences in Dr. Nass’s favor, the alleged harm could support a compensatory (or even nominal) damages award, either of which could set the groundwork for a punitive damages award.

As you can see, we have a strong case against the arbitrary, capricious (and downright malicious imho) actions of the Board members against me and (downstream) against the public, which appear to have gone way beyond their official duties. Discovery will be interesting. They say, “revenge is sweet.” I will let you know about that.