Atlanta, GA – Today, a Judge in Georgia ruled that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene did not “engage in insurrection” on January 6th and is qualified to run for Congress, despite a liberal activist group’s effort to disqualify her. In a sweeping victory for Rep. Greene, the Judge found that the voters challenging Rep. Greene’s candidacy had a major problem with their case—namely, the fact they “presented no persuasive evidence Rep. Greene took any action” to further the unlawful Capitol riot on January 6, 2021.

A group of five Georgia voters, backed by the national liberal group, Free Speech for People, filed a complaint with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, attempting to disqualify Rep. Greene from running for Congress. They alleged that Rep. Greene does not meet the federal constitutional requirements for a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives because she “voluntarily aided and engaged in an insurrection to obstruct the peaceful transfer of presidential” power on January 6th.

On April 22, 2022, the Judge held an eight-hour hearing in which Rep. Greene testified for several hours. During this testimony, she vigorously denied that she aided or engaged in the unlawful attack on the Capitol and testified that, while the Capitol was under attack and as she was sequestered in the Capitol building for her own protection, she broadcast a video, that was widely distributed, condemning the attack.

Within three hours of the judge’s ruling, Sec. Raffensperger issued a final opinion, confirming Rep. Greene is qualified to run for office. Now, Rep. Greene may be subject to an appeal of Sec. Raffensperger’s decision by the Challengers in Georgia courts. If the Georgia courts overturn Sec. Raffensperger’s finding, Rep. Green could still lose her right to run for office.

In addition to the Georgia process, Rep. Greene filed a federal lawsuit, which has now been appealed to the 11th Circuit. This suit makes several claims that the Georgia law which allows voters to challenge candidacies violates her constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, and this particular type of challenge to her candidacy has been prohibited by federal law. Based upon this unconstitutional law and the administrative procedure it provided for, Rep. Greene  is still faced with the potential of being removed from the ballot by Sec. Raffensperger with less than a month to go before the primary election, or being found to be disqualified after having won the primary election.

“While I’m thrilled with the victory today, and its recognition that I never was involved in the riot that occurred at the Capitol, this process, and the despicable charge that triggered it, still presents a real danger to our Republic—because liberal activists won’t stop with me or my candidacy,” said Rep. Greene. “I love this country, have never engaged in, or would ever engage in, an insurrection against the United States, and the Judge agreed today that the group behind the challenge had no evidence that I did. By testifying and by bringing the federal lawsuit, I am defending not only my right to run for office, and the right of the People to democratically elect their representatives. but I am also defending the rights of other candidates who have been and will be subjected to such tactics.”

“Today was a great victory not only for Rep. Greene, but for the First Amendment and representative democracy,” said James Bopp, Jr., of The Bopp Law Firm, lead counsel for Rep. Greene. “Of course Rep. Greene did not participate in the January 6th attack on the Capitol, but in fact condemned it. But we will continue to fight so that the People of Georgia’s 14th Congressional District will be the final voice in picking their Representative.”

Bopp added: “The liberal Democrat group behind this, Free Speech for People, has already sought to disqualify other Members of Congress and they will not stop here. They will continue these monstrous claims against perhaps two dozen member of Congress and ultimately President Trump, if he runs for election in 2024. The courts need to make it clear that such tactics will not be tolerated in this country—you have the right to run and campaign against candidates you disagree with—you don’t have the right to use a state bureaucracy to eliminate your competition, clearing your path to victory.”

Find opinion at www.bopplaw.com

 

 

 

Indianapolis, IN, May 4, 2022 – In 2021, Joseph J. Swantack, Jr., and Christine M. Swantack, of New Albany, OH were confronted by their homeowner’s association (HOA) regarding the Thin Blue Line flag they displayed in support of law enforcement. They were assessed fines and threatened with litigation if they refused to remove the flag flying outside their front door.

The National Police Association, having previously successfully intervened on behalf of a Colorado homeowner with their HOA regarding a Thin Blue Line flag, contacted the Swantacks and offered assistance. Contacts with the HOA seeking a mutually agreeable voluntary outcome were in this case unsuccessful.

According to James Bopp Jr. of The Bopp Law Firm of Terre Haute, Indiana, counsel for Plaintiffs, “HOA covenants that prohibit the display of the Thin Blue Line flag are in violation of the First Amendment and the threats by the HOA to enforce their prohibition in court are without merit.”

Sgt. Betsy Brantner Smith (Ret), the spokesperson for the National Police Association, says: “Although this matter is purely a question of law, more broadly the Thin Blue Line in all its forms has come under attack from anti-police activists who seek to eliminate any symbol of support for law enforcement. You’ll note when parties have been able to ban the Thin Blue Line as a symbol of support for law enforcement they rarely provide an alternative symbol of support they will permit. That’s because there aren’t any.”

The case is 1:22-cv-00237 National Police Association, Inc. et al v. New Albany Park Condominium Association Board of Directors et al, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division. The lawsuit can be read here https://nationalpolice.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/National-Police-Association-Inc.-et-al-v.-New-Albany-Park-Condominium-Association-Board-of-Directors-et-al.pdf

About The National Police Association
The National Police Association (NPA) is a 501(c)3 Educational/Advocacy non-profit organization. For additional information visit www.nationalpolice.org.

###

Media Contact:
National Police Association
npa@5wpr.com

Atlanta, GA – On Wednesday, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene appealed a decision issued by a federal judge, who denied her previous request for injunction against an attempt to keep her off the ballot for the upcoming primary election. This injunction would prohibit officials in the State of Geogia from hearing challenges, brought by several Georgia voters, against her candidacy for the U.S. House of Representatives.

Recently, a group of Challengers filed a complaint with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, attempting to disqualify Rep. Greene from running for Congress. They alleged that Rep. Greene does not meet the federal constitutional requirements for a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives because she “voluntarily aided and engaged in an insurrection to obstruct the peaceful transfer of presidential power.” Rep. Greene vigorously denies that she aided or engaged in insurrection, she condemned the attack of the Capitol on January 6th, and her suit sought to enjoin officials in the State of Georgia from employing unconstitutional and unlawful provisions of Georgia election law and the Disqualification Clause of the 14th Amendment to remove her from the ballot as a Candidate.

Rep. Greene filed this lawsuit, making several claims that the Georgia law which allows voters to challenge candidacies violates her constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, and this particular type of challenge to her candidacy has been prohibited by federal law. Based upon this unconstitutional law and the administrative procedure it provides (which has been proceeding simultaneously with the federal litigation), Rep. Greene  is faced with the potential of being removed from the ballot by Sec. Raffensperger with less than a month to go before the primary election, or being found to be disqualified after having won the primary election.

Rep. Greene could lose her right to run for office and her supporters would lose their right to vote for her because the Georgia law allowed five voters in her district to prevent her from running for office in the first place. Opposing a candidate you disagree with is one thing—using the political system to prevent that same candidate from running is quite another. If political operatives are able to use a quasi-judicial process, thick with constitutional and legal defects, to select who their favored candidate will have to run against, then our Representative Republic is in real danger.

“It is a great honor and privilege to run for office, and it is also a right protected under the Constitution,” said Rep. Greene. “I love this country, have never engaged in, or would ever engage in, an insurrection against the United States and I have condemned the January 6th attack on the Capitol. Regardless of this fact, liberal Democrats attempted to defeat democracy by having state bureaucrats, rather than the People, choose who will represent Georgia’s 14th District in Congress. The group behind the challenge to my candidacy promised to bring many such challenges—and they have begun to do so all across the country. By bringing this suit, I  defended not only my rights, but the right of the People to democratically elect their representatives and the rights of other candidates who may be subjected to such tactics.”

“Georgia’s law clearly violates constitutional and federal law as applied to Rep. Greene,” said James Bopp, Jr., of The Bopp Law Firm, lead counsel for Rep. Greene. “And Rep. Greene did not participate in the January 6th attack on the Capitol, but in fact condemned it. We will continue to fight so that the People of Georgia’s 14th Congressional District will be the final voice to pick their Representative, not state bureaucrats in Atlanta.”

Finally, Bopp said that “Rep Greene is just one of the first victims of the liberal Democrat group behind this, Free Speech for People, that plans to roll out this scurrilous charge against perhaps two dozen member of Congress and ultimately President Trump if he runs for election in 2024. This is Russia Hoax 2.0.”

Wilmington, NC – Today, a federal judge in North Carolina issued an injunction against the North Carolina State Board of Elections—this injunction prohibits the Board from hearing challenges, brought by several North Carolina voters, against Representative Madison Cawthorn’s candidacy for the U.S. House of Representatives.

Recently, a group of Challengers filed a complaint with the NCSBE attempting to disqualify Rep. Cawthorn from running for Congress. They alleged that Rep. Cawthorn does not meet the federal constitutional requirements for a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives because he engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States on January 6th. Rep. Cawthorn vigorously denies that he “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States, and his suit sought to enjoin the NCSBE from employing unconstitutional and unlawful provisions of North Carolina election law to remove him from the ballot as a Candidate.

The judge held that due to the substantial likelihood that Rep. Cawthorn’s candidacy will be significantly impacted by the challenges before the upcoming primary, it was proper for the court to determine whether the Board could proceed with the challenge. The court held that the North Carolina law violated federal law, to the extent Challenges are based upon the “insurrection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because Congress removed that Amendment’s application to any current Members of Congress in The Amnesty Act of 1872.

“It is a great honor and privilege to run for office, and it is also a right protected under the Constitution,” said Rep. Cawthorn. “I love this country and have never engaged in, or would ever engage in, an insurrection against the United States. Regardless of this fact, liberal Democrats attempted to defeat democracy by having state bureaucrats, rather than the People, choose who will represent North Carolina’s 11th District in Congress. The group behind the challenge to my candidacy promised I was just the first of many such challenges they had planned. By bringing this suit, I defended not only my rights, but the right of the People to democratically elect their representatives and the rights of other candidates who may be subjected to such tactics.”

“North Carolina’s law clearly violates federal law as applied to Rep. Cawthorn,” said James Bopp, Jr., of The Bopp Law Firm, lead counsel for Rep. Cawthorn. “We are pleased the court recognized this government overreach. But more fundamentally, we are pleased that the People of North Carolina’s 11th Congressional District will be the final voice to pick their Representative, not state bureaucrats in Raleigh. The national implication for today’s victory is huge—liberal activists should be warned that such blatant attempts to subvert our democracy will be fought at every turn.”

Raleigh, North Carolina- On Monday, Rep. Madison Cawthorn, who serves in the U.S. House of Representatives for North Carolina’s 11th congressional district, filed suit in federal court against the members of the North Carolina State Board of Elections (“NCSBE”) over the unconstitutional attempt to disqualify him for reelection.

Recently, a group of Challengers filed a complaint with the NCSBE attempting to disqualify him from reelection. They alleged that Rep. Cawthorn “does not meet the federal constitutional requirements for a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives and is therefore ineligible to be a candidate for such office.” The Cawthorn Challenge was based upon claims that Rep. Cawthorn engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States on January 6th and was, therefore, not qualified to be a Member of Congress under the U.S. Constitution.  Rep. Cawthorn vigorously denies that he “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States, and this suit seeks to enjoin the NCSBE from employing unconstitutional provisions of North Carolina election law to remove him from the ballot as a Candidate.

Under North Carolina law, a Challenger can challenge someone’s qualifications to run for office  based only on a reasonable suspicion or belief that the facts stated disqualify the Candidate from running for office and then the Candidate bears the burden of proof to show that he is qualified to run for office. This burden shifting turns our legal system on its head, requiring someone prove his “innocence” when challenged.

Rep. Cawthorn, therefore, claims the Challenge Statute: (1) violates his First Amendment rights by triggering a government investigation based solely upon a Challenger’s “reasonable suspicion”; (2) violates his Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by shifting the burden of proof onto him to prove he didn’t engage in an “insurrection or rebellion;” (3) is unconstitutional because it overrides the U.S. House of Representative’s exclusive power to determine the qualifications for its Members; and (4) violates federal law because the “disqualification clause,” Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment no longer applies to current Congressional Members, because of the Amnesty Act of 1872.

“Running for office is not only a great privilege, it is a right protected under the Constitution,” said Rep. Cawthorn. “I love this country and have never engaged in, or would ever engage in, an insurrection against the United States. Regardless of this fact, the Disqualification clause and North Carolina’s Challenge Statute is being used as a weapon by liberal Democrats to attempt to defeat our democracy by having state bureaucrats, rather than the People, choose who will represent North Carolina in Congress. I’m defending not only my rights, but the right of the People to democratically elect their representatives.”

“North Carolina’s law is unjust and unconstitutional as applied to Rep. Cawthorn,” said James Bopp, Jr., of The Bopp Law Firm, lead counsel for Rep. Cawthorn. “The Challenge Statute violates fundamental principles of rights to free speech, due process, and federal law. Requiring someone to prove he didn’t do something based upon the barest of “suspicions” is patently unfair and unconstitutional. But more fundamentally, the People should decide who represents them, no state bureaucrats in Raleigh.”

“But ominously, this is not an isolated effort,” said Bopp. “Marc Elias, the Democrat lawyer behind the Trump Russia hoax, announced a few months ago a nation-wide effort to disqualify about two dozen Republican Members of Congress under this bizarre legal theory. Rep. Cawthorn is just the tip of Elias’ spear. Of course, this would mean that some two dozen Democrats might be running without a Republican nominee, cementing Democrats’ control of Congress. This despicable effort needs to be stopped here and now and Rep. Cawthorn has pledged to do everything necessary to do so.”

The complaint and related Preliminary Injunction Memorandum is available on The Bopp Law Firm, PC’s website here.

Los Angeles, California – Yesterday, a federal judge in California dismissed a defamation lawsuit that was filed against famed Christian motivational speaker, Nick Vujicic, who is represented by The Bopp Law Firm.

When someone exercises his right to free speech on a matter of public concern and then is sued for doing so, California law offers special protections for the defendant. In recent years, “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” (“SLAPP”) suits, have become more common. SLAPP suits are frivolous lawsuits designed to intimidate the speaker from exercising his right to free speech. “Anti-SLAPP” laws provide a way for a person sued under such frivolous claims to get the suit dismissed early in the legal process, saving valuable time and resources along the way.

Anatoly Sharij, a well-known Ukranian blogger and political activist, sued Nick Vujicic, who is a renowned Christian motivational speaker, with a worldwide following, including in Ukraine. Mr. Vujicic recorded a video, which was requested via Cameo by someone who said they were Mr. Sharij’s “friend.” This Cameo video encouraged Mr. Sharij in his efforts to “encourag[ing] other people with helping others not to be afraid.” However, Mr. Vujicic specifically noted he did not know Mr. Sharij and had never seen his blogs.

Mr. Sharij then altered Mr. Vujicic’s Cameo video by: (1) removing the Cameo watermark; (2) editing out the fact that another person requested the Cameo video from Mr. Vujicic; and (3) editing out that Mr. Vujicic was not personally familiar with Mr. Sharij and had not seen his blogs. Once this video was published, Mr. Vujicic became aware of Mr. Sharij’s political activities. Mr. Vujicic then published a video on his own social media pages, apologizing to his followers for being misinformed by Mr. Sharij and asking Mr. Sharij to take down the altered video. Mr. Sharij then sued Mr. Vujicic, claiming Mr. Vujicic defamed him and cast “false light publicity, when he stated he was “misinformed” by Mr. Sharij.

The judge dismissed Mr. Sharij’s suit, stating that he had no reasonable probability of winning his suit against Mr. Vujicic. The judge ruled that Mr. Vujicic’s video arose from his exercise of his First Amendment rights. Next, the judge held the video did not contain any false statements and “the lack of a false statement is fatal” to Mr. Sharij’s claims.

After this victory, Mr. Vujicic stated, “I praise God and give him the glory for this victory. God promises us that truth ultimately prevails. I am thankful that in this case, truth prevailed!”

“I am thrilled that California’s Anti-SLAPP law worked exactly as it should—preventing needless expense and litigation that has no chance of success and is simply designed to quiet someone like Mr. Vujicic,” stated James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for Mr. Vujicic. “I am a member of the Uniform Law Commission, and we saw the rise in SLAPP suits and have worked to draft a model Anti-SLAPP law, which many states have adopted. I am pleased that such work leads to such real-world results, that saved my client needless time and expense in defending against a frivolous lawsuit.”

“California’s Anti-SLAPP law provides for an award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs on behalf of a prevailing Defendant such as Mr. Vujicic,” said Bopp. “We will seek a court award of attorneys fees against Mr. Sharij so that Mr. Vujicic will be made whole.”

Chicago, Illinois—Today, an Illinois state court judge issued a ruling that contained good news for the National Association of Professional Agents (“NAPAA”) and for the individual agents who are suing Allstate for various breach of contract claims.

First, the judge ruled that NAPAA did have standing to bring the claims against Allstate on behalf of its members. “The court recognized that some of the claims against Allstate impact agents across the nation,” said NAPAA’s Executive Director, Ted Paris. “It is critical that our members understand that NAPAA exists in order to help support them in multiple ways—and one important way is by ensuring that Allstate is living up to the terms of its contract with agents. The judges ruling enables NAPAA to continue this fight for agents’ interests.”

Second, the judge refused to dismiss some claims brought by NAPAA against Allstate for breaching the contract by allowing Independent Agents (“IAs”) to sell in territories serviced by Exclusive Agents (“EAs”). Allstate has promised, in public statements and over its history with agents, that IAs will not compete in areas already serviced by EAs. Instead of abiding by its own statements, Allstate has authorized hundreds of IAs to directly compete in the same areas served by EAs.

In addition, NAPAA’s fight continues against Allstate’s implementation of “Allstate Agency Voice”—a VOIP telephone system Allstate is forcing upon agents. Allstate’s contract with EAs specifically states that EAs are responsible for providing and paying for their own telephone systems. But now, Allstate removes that contractual benefit from agents—they can no longer shop for the best telephone system for their agency. With AAV, Allstate has removed that advantage from agents while still forcing the agents to pay for AAV. Although the judge did not grant NAPAA’s request that Allstate’s implementation of AAV be halted, while the claim proceeds, the judge did indicate that, if this claim is ultimately successful, agents might be entitled to damages.

Finally, the judge refused to dismiss any of the claims brought by individual agents for various breaches of contract, including unjust terminations for cause and improper interference with the sale of their agencies. One of the primary benefits of being an EA with Allstate is your ability to sell your book of business. Allstate does not have the right to interfere in the negotiations between an EA who is selling his book and potential buyers. But Allstate did just that—steering potential buyers away from purchasing one EA’s book, and guiding that buyer to other EAs instead; interfering directly with negotiations regarding selling price, and forcing agencies to be split before selling. In addition, Allstate unjustly terminated agents for alleged infractions. But the reality is, these same agents were some of the most successful agents who were earning high commissions from Allstate.

“We are thrilled that we can continue to fight for what is right in this case,” stated James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for NAPAA and the individual agents. “Contracts mean something, and powerful, large corporations do not have the right to violate their contracts. This is especially true when a company like Allstate writes the contract and requires the agents to sign the contract, as written, with no negotiation as to its terms. We look forward to working with NAPAA to vindicate the agents’ rights against Allstate.”

Denver, Colorado- On Monday, several University of Colorado (“CU”) students filed a federal lawsuit against CU challenging its draconian COVID Vaccine Mandate.

The lawsuit alleges that CU has violated: (1) the students’ constitutional liberty interests by forcing students to take an unwanted medical treatment; (2) the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by evaluating the “sincerity” and doctrine of CU students’ religious beliefs in order to receive a religious exemption; (3) the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by choosing between favored and disfavored systems of belief for religious exemptions; and (4) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

CU’s Mandate requires every student to take the COVID vaccine and self-disclose his vaccination status. If a student refuses to do so and does not receive an exemption, the student will suffer strong consequences. These consequences amount to virtual expulsion from CU if a student refuses to get the COVID vaccine.

While CU’s Mandate applies generally to all campuses, each campus has campus-specific implementation, including different processes for considering exemption requests. CU’s Mandate does not include an exemption for those with a natural immunity to COVID, including those who have previously been infected by COVID and fully recovered or for many medical contra-indications.

Numerous government agencies and officials, including the CDC Director, Dr. Walensky, admit that the COVID injections do not prevent infection by and transmission of COVID, but may provide protection from serious disease and death. Because they do not provide protection from the spread of the virus, Students argue that the COVID injections should be considered medical treatments, instead of a public health measure.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the government cannot force medical treatments on competent individuals who do not consent to the treatment. Outside of the context of prison, where the rights of prisoners to refuse treatment are circumscribed, such mandates are unlawful under constitutional precedent.

Individual CU campuses can determine their own processes for exemptions, which has led some CU campuses to require students “prove” their religious convictions are sincere. Under the First Amendment, the government does not have the authority to distinguish which religious denominations really “qualify” as having a sincere doctrinal belief on a myriad of issues.

“Students are not prisoners, and they should be afforded the right to refuse an unwanted medical treatment,” said James Bopp, Jr., of The Bopp Law Firm, lead counsel for Students. “CU’s Mandate violates the fundamental liberty and religious rights of CU’s students—it requires all CU students without any meaningful exemptions to take the COVID vaccine. CU is not seeking voluntary consent from its students to take the COVID vaccination—it is coercing its students under threat of virtual expulsion to take a vaccine even though the risks associated with the vaccine, especially for college-age students, are serious and increasingly recognized, and students are at an extremely low risk of adverse effects if they get a COVID infection.”

America’s Frontline Doctors provided valuable expert declarations and scientific analysis to assist The Bopp Law Firm in this litigation.

The complaint and related Preliminary Injunction Memorandum is available on The Bopp Law Firm, PC’s website here.

Today, The IU Family for Choice, not Mandates, Inc., (“IUFCNM”), filed a friend of the court brief in two U.S. Supreme Court cases considering whether the Biden administration will be allowed to move forward with its plans to mandate COVID vaccines for private employees.

At President Biden’s direction, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) recently issued a mandate to all private employers who employ more than 100 workers that requires all employees at these private companies to receive a COVID vaccine, be forced to comply with testing and masking requirements, or lose their jobs. If the employers do not comply with OSHA’s mandate, they face enormous fines, which could total billions of dollars and fuel further problems in an already tight labor market.

Numerous government agencies and officials, including the CDC Director, Dr. Walensky, admit that the COVID injections do not prevent infection by and transmission of COVID, but may provide protection from serious disease and death. Because they do not provide protection from the spread of the virus, IUFCNM argued that the COVID injections should be considered medical treatments, instead of a public health measure.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the government cannot force medical treatments on competent individuals who do not consent to the treatment. Outside of the context of prison, where the rights of prisoners to refuse treatment are circumscribed, such mandates are unlawful under constitutional precedent.

“Private employees are not prisoners, and they should be afforded the right to refuse an unwanted medical treatment,” said James Bopp, Jr., of The Bopp Law Firm, lead counsel for IUFCNM. “OSHA’s mandate is breathtaking overreach by an administration that seems bent on ignoring important constitutional rights. Federal agencies, like OSHA, simply do not have the police power to mandate vaccines. Even if OSHA had such power, which it doesn’t, it would have to exercise it according to established constitutional principles. OSHA’s mandate ignores both the scope of its power and the individual’s right to refuse unwanted medical treatment. We are happy to support IUFCNM’s fight against such unconstitutional actions.”

Read The IU Family for Choice, not Mandates, Inc. Amicus Brief here.

James Bopp, Jr. of The Bopp Law Firm ended 2021 fighting in Indiana against employer COVID vaccination mandates and in Wisconsin for election integrity.

On December 16th, Bopp testified before the Indiana House Committee on Employment, Labor and Pensions regarding HB1001, urging the Indiana General Assembly to ban Indiana businesses from mandating COVID vaccinations for their employees.

In his testimony, Bopp noted the wide agreement, backed up by expert studies, that the COVID vaccines do not prevent a person from getting a COVID infection and transmitting it to others but may ameliorate the symptoms and effects, which means that COVID vaccinations are preventative medical treatments, not a public health measure. Bopp argued that the law requires that medical treatments receive the patient’s voluntary and informed consent and, as a result, employer mandates are contrary to law.

Bopp’s testimony was cited by many news stories.

Vax mandate hearing in Indiana shows sharp split between business, individuals | Indiana | kokomoperspective.com

Furthermore,on December 23, Bopp was in Madison, Wisconsin state court arguing that the Wisconsin State Assembly’s effort to investigate possible irregularities in the November 2020 election should go forward in order to ensure the integrity of Wisconsin elections.

The Wisconsin State Assembly has appointed former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Mike Gableman, as Special Counsel, to conduct a thorough investigation of the administration of recent elections in Wisconsin. Gableman has issued subpoenas to the Wisconsin Elections Commission to investigate several credible allegations of misfeasance by the WEC during the November 2020 election. The WEC however filed suit to fight the subpoenas.

Bopp, representing Justice Gableman, argued that legislative oversight of the WEC was vital to maintain the integrity of Wisconsin elections in the face of serious allegations of misconduct and that a government agency, like WEC, had no authority to resist an investigation of their conduct by the Wisconsin legislature since it was the body that created, empowered, and funded WEC.

Several news stories featured Bopp’s arguments to the state court.

Dane County judge to rule next month on the validity of Gableman’s subpoena | State & Regional | wiscnews.com

Press About Bopp Law Firm

Press Releases

Email James Bopp Jr.

"*" indicates required fields

Name*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.