Atlanta, GA – Last week, a judge in Fulton County agreed with Secretary of State Raffensperger’s finding 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.

This is Rep. Greene’s second victory in this case—the first came when an administrative judge ruled in her favor and Sec. Raffensperger affirmed that judge’s ruling. A group of five Georgia voters, backed by the national left-wing group, Free Speech for People, then filed in the Fulton County court for a review of Sec. Raffensperger’s decision. But the state court judge now has affirmed what both the administrative judge and Sec. Raffensperger decided—the voters challenging Rep. Greene’s candidacy did not come anywhere close to providing evidence to support their claim.

The challengers alleged that Rep. Greene does not meet the federal constitutional requirements for a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives because she “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” on January 6th, which, if she did, would disqualify her from taking office upon her reelection under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. The administrative judge held an eight-hour hearing in which Rep. Greene testified for several hours, but the challengers complained that findings of the administrative law judge should be reversed because of several alleged procedural problems. The Fulton County judge rejected all of the challengers’ legal arguments. The Fulton County judge agreed that the challengers failed to present any evidence to support their smear.

“Today was a great victory for the rule of law and our representative Republic,” said James Bopp, Jr., of The Bopp Law Firm, lead counsel for Rep. Greene. “Voters in Rep. Greene’s congressional district voted overwhelmingly for Rep. Greene in the primary election—they should be the final voice in picking their Representative.”

Bopp added: “Free Speech for People, a liberal activist group, will not stop here. They will continue these monstrous claims against perhaps two dozen members of Congress and ultimately President Trump, if he runs for election in 2024. In this country, you have the right to speak out against candidates and run against them. You do not have the right to use state bureaucrats to eliminate your political opponents’ ability to run.  The courts in this country need to stand firm against such baseless attempts to subvert the democratic process.”

Find opinion at www.bopplaw.com

For immediate release: Friday, July 29, 2022

For more information: Laura Echevarria, (202) 626‑8825, mediarelations@nrlc.org; Indiana Right to Life, media@protectinglife.com; Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Cell Phone 812/243‑0825; Phone 812/232‑2434; Fax 812/235‑3685; jboppjr@aol.com

National Right to Life Stands with Indiana Right to Life in Opposing Indiana’s SB 1

WASHINGTON— The following is a statement from National Right to Life:

National Right to Life stands with its Indiana affiliate, Indiana Right to Life, in opposing SB 1.

Indiana’s SB 1 is a phony bill that would do the opposite of what its proponents claim that it would do. SB 1 would fail to protect lives and endanger vulnerable women and their unborn children.

SB 1 was drafted without consultation from any state, local or national pro‑life group or expert. Instead, SB 1 was drafted with the advice from organizations and experts who have made abortion on demand part of their mission.

SB 1 contains vague language and ill‑defined terms which would actually protect abortion instead of protecting unborn children. SB 1 also would undermine existing protections for unborn children with disabilities.

The pro‑life movement calls upon pro‑life legislators in the Indiana legislature to reject this travesty of a bill.

For additional information, contact Indiana Right to Life at media@protectinglife.com

Click here for the latest statement from Indiana Right to Life.

Founded in 1968, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of affiliates in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia and more than 3,000 local chapters, is the nation’s oldest and largest grassroots pro‑life organization. Recognized as the flagship of the pro‑life movement, National Right to Life works through legislation and education to protect innocent human life from abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide and euthanasia.

###

Visit The Bopp Law Firm PC Website

PRESS RELEASE
July 28, 2022
Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Cell Phone 812/243‑0825; Phone 812/232‑2434; Fax 812/235‑3685; jboppjr@aol.com

Pro‑life Groups Continue to Oppose Indiana SB 1 After Ineffective Rules Committee Amendments

James Bopp, Jr., General Counsel for the National Right to Life Committee, said today: “All major pro‑life groups, including the National Right to Life Committee, continue to oppose the adoption of SB 1, since minor and ineffective amendments by the Rules Committee did nothing to address the pervasive and fundamental defects in SB 1, which will result in abortion on demand in Indiana if SB 1 is adopted.”

SB 1 was written with the advice of, and includes language proposed by ACOG, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the nation’s leading pro‑abortion medical group. When introduced, it was condemned by all major state and national pro‑life groups.

In the Senate Rules Committee vote on Tuesday, a few minor amendments were adopted which did nothing to fix the major defects in SB 1, so Right to Life groups continue to oppose the adoption of SB 1.

According to Bopp, “SB 1, the ACOG pro‑abortion bill, is so fundamentally flawed and its effect is so devastating to the unborn child that it needs wholesale replacement or defeat on the Senate floor. The Indiana Legislature is perfectly capable, as it has consistently done in the past, to propose and to pass suitable pro‑life legislation, and it should do so now.”

Visit The Bopp Law Firm PC Website

PRESS RELEASE
July 26, 2022
Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Cell Phone 812/243‑0825; Phone 812/232‑2434; Fax 812/235‑3685; jboppjr@aol.com

Bopp Law Firm’s Courtney Milbank Testifies Against Indiana SB 1, as “a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing”

In testimony before the Indiana Senate Rules Committee, Courtney Turner Milbank, a member of The Bopp Law Firm, PC, described SB 1, a proposed post‑Roe abortion bill, as “a wolf in sheep’s clothing” and stated that pro‑life groups oppose its passage.

Milbank explained: “In general, SB 1 is an abject failure in achieving the pro‑life movement’s goal of extending substantial protection to innocent unborn life now that that authority has been returned to Indiana by the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe and Casey in Dobbs.”

“While billed as prohibiting abortion except to save the mother’s life and for rape or incest,” Milbank said, “SB 1 utterly fails to limit abortions to even the exceptions that it purports to find acceptable, due to numerous and pervasive legal flaws and omissions. If adopted, SB 1 would result in the continuation of abortion on demand throughout pregnancy in Indiana.”

In her written testimony, Milbank detailed some of the most egregious examples of the failure of SB 1 to protect the unborn:

  • SB 1 removes all criminal penalties from, and provides complete immunity for, illegal abortions consented to by the pregnant woman, except for partial birth abortions, D&E abortions, and abortions performed without informed consent.
  • SB 1 eliminates the legal requirement for the consent of pregnant woman for an abortion if it is necessary to save her life, so that a physician can abort a woman’s baby over her objection.
  • SB 1 explicitly recognizes, and legalizes and facilitates, chemical abortion clinics flourishing throughout Indiana by authorizing abortion inducing drugs to flood Indiana and by facilitating their use through licensing current and future chemical abortion clinics throughout the state.

Milbank explained that the gross deficiencies in SB 1 were the “inevitable result of its formulation process. . . . No local, state, or national prolife organization or any expert pro‑life lawyer . . . [were] consulted, but instead, SB 1 was drafted based on the advice of abortion rights advocates, using their suggested language, . . . from groups such as ACOG, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is one of the foremost pro‑abortion advocacy groups in the nation.”

As a result, Milbank stated, “while parading as a pro‑life measure SB 1 is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, protecting abortion on demand by defective language, lack of necessary safeguards, and lack of an effective enforcement mechanism.”

National Right to Life announced yesterday that they opposes SB 1 and urged the Senate to pass truly pro‑life legislation to protect the unborn.

A copy of Milbank’s written testimony can be obtained here

Visit The Bopp Law Firm PC Website

The Bopp Law Firm, PC
National Building
1 South 6th Street
Terre Haute, IN 47807‑3510

For immediate release: Monday, July 25, 2022
For more information: Laura Echevarria, (202) 626‑8825, mediarelations@nrlc.org

National Right to Life Opposes Indiana’s SB 1
Deeply Flawed Bill is a “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing”

WASHINGTON— National Right to Life joins with its Indiana affiliate, Indiana Right to Life, in opposing SB 1.

“Indiana’s SB 1 is a complete disaster of a bill,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “It would fail, in a spectacular way, to protect any human lives and instead would leave women vulnerable to an industry that preys upon women.”

SB 1 was drafted without consultation from any state, local or national pro‑life group or expert. Instead, SB 1 was drafted with the advice from organizations and experts who have made abortion on demand part of their mission.

Accordingly, National Right to Life and Indiana Right to Life oppose the bill for several reasons, including:

SB 1 removes all criminal penalties from, and provides complete immunity for, illegal abortions consented to by pregnant women, except for partial‑birth abortions, D & E abortions, and abortions performed without informed consent.

SB 1 does not require the consent of a woman for an abortion to save the life of the mother. Thus, the physician can abort the child even if the mother objects and wants to carry the baby.

SB 1 explicitly recognizes, legalizes, and facilitates chemical abortion clinics throughout Indiana by authorizing abortion‑inducing drugs to flood the state. The bill facilitates their use through the licensing of current and future chemical abortion clinics throughout the state.

According to James Bopp, Jr., General Counsel for NRLC, “A careful legal examination of SB 1 reveals that, in nearly every provision, SB 1 uses defective language, lack of necessary safeguards, and lack of any effective enforcement mechanism that it results in abortion on demand.”

 “The bill is so poorly drafted, it would do the complete opposite of what it claims to do,” said Tobias. “The bill would facilitate and support abortion on demand, leave women exposed to harm without any legal recourse, and establish abortion facilities throughout the state.”

Tobias continued, “The pro‑life movement denounces this bill for what it is—a wolf in sheep’s clothing designed to expand abortion on demand in the state of Indiana.”

For a legal analysis of SB1 from National Right to Life & Indiana Right to Life’s general counsel, click here.

Founded in 1968, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of affiliates in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia and more than 3,000 local chapters, is the nation’s oldest and largest grassroots pro‑life organization. Recognized as the flagship of the pro‑life movement, National Right to Life works through legislation and education to protect innocent human life from abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Visit The Bopp Law Firm PC Website

For immediate release: Wednesday, June 15, 2022
For more information: Laura Echevarria, (202) 626-8825, mediarelations@nrlc.org; James Bopp, Jr. Cell Phone 812/243-0825; Phone 812/232-2434; Fax 812/235-3685; jboppjr@aol.com

WASHINGTON — In a memo distributed today by James Bopp, Jr. of The Bopp Law Firm, PC, general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee, NRLC proposed a Post-Roe Model Abortion law for the states to adopt, in the event that, in the upcoming decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization or some future decision, the United States Supreme Court substantially expands states’ authority to legislate regarding abortion by overturning Roe v. Wade.

“For decades, National Right to Life and its state affiliates have led the effort to pass life-affirming laws at the state level that protect unborn children and their mothers — efforts that have drastically reduced the number of abortions and brought us to this moment in our nation’s history,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “With this model law, we are laying out a roadmap for the right-to-life movement so that, in a post-Roe society, we can protect many mothers and their children from the tragedy of abortion.”

The model law recommended by the National Right to Life Committee would first protect the lives of unborn children from abortion except when necessary to prevent the death of the mother, which has been the accepted policy of the pro-life movement since 1973 and for many years before. In addition, the model law ensures that no criminal or civil penalty will be imposed on a pregnant woman.

Second, because current realities require that abortion laws have a robust enforcement mechanism to ensure that they are effective, the model law provides criminal penalties, but also broad criminal enforcement authority—granted to both local prosecutors and states’ attorneys general—and civil remedies and licensing revocation for physicians who perform illegal abortions.

The model law also reaches well beyond the actual performance of an illegal abortion. It also includes aiding and abetting an illegal abortion, and a variety of other acts in furtherance of illegal abortion; trafficking in abortifacients; trafficking minors to obtain illegal abortions; and, in a RICO-style provision, the use of proceeds from a pattern of illegal abortion activity to engage in such activity.

On the civil side, the model law would allow state or local officials and affected persons to bring a civil action against any person or entity that violates any provision of the model law, permitting a court to enjoin the offender to prevent future violations; permitting compensatory damages if the plaintiff has suffered actual injury or harm from the defendant’s conduct; punitive damages, payable to the not-for-profit organization of the plaintiff’s choice, that provides services to pregnant women; and costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

“In the event Roe v. Wade is overturned, states will have a significant opportunity to protect the unborn,” said James Bopp, Jr., general counsel for National Right to Life. “In doing so, it is important that such states not only prohibit illegal abortions, but also employ a robust enforcement regime, so that these laws are sure to be enforced.” He continued, “Our model law does just that. It builds on the substantial experience the right-to-life movement has had in developing pro-life legislation and we believe it presents the best opportunity to protect the unborn.”

The text of the model law can be found here.

The memorandum and model law from The Bopp Law Firm, PC can also be found here.

Founded in 1968, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of affiliates in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia and more than 3,000 local chapters, is the nation’s oldest and largest grassroots pro-life organization. Recognized as the flagship of the pro-life movement, National Right to Life works through legislation and education to protect innocent human life from abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide and euthanasia.

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.”

Press About Bopp Law Firm

Press Releases