Month in Review – December 2023

Here are the highlights for December:

* On December 7, we filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the high court to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which dismissed our challenge to Pennsylvania’s COVID-19 restrictions on justiciability grounds.

The lawsuit was filed against the Pennsylvania Governor, the Pennsylvania Attorney General, and the Secretary of Health for the Pennsylvania Department of Health.

After denying a request for a preliminary injunction, the district court dismissed the lawsuit, claiming that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the contact tracing program (even though they were subject to its restrictions and harmed by them) and that their challenge to the mask mandate was moot as the Department of Health unilaterally rescinded the mandate in June 2021, which was eight months after the lawsuit was filed.

The challengers appealed to the Third Circuit, and the circuit court affirmed, dismissing the lawsuit on standing and mootness grounds.

As stated in the petition filed in the Supreme Court:

The COVID-19 pandemic created a constitutional crisis.  For years, American citizens, including Petitioners, were subject to constantly changing orders that imposed burdens on fundamental freedoms in a way that our nation has never experienced in its history.  The cost of these burdens is incalculable.  Unfortunately, many courts did nothing, abdicating their duty to say what the law is and allowing this assault on liberty to proceed largely unchecked.

The Court needs to take up on the merits a challenge to these draconian COVID-19 restrictions.  So far, it has refused to do so beyond the few injunction cases it decided as part of its “shadow docket.”

* On December 9, we filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, asking the court to review an adverse decision rendered in our lawsuit filed against the City of Tulsa and its Chief of Police on behalf of a Tulsa police officer.

In 2019, we filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the City of Tulsa and its Chief of Police, Chuck Jordan, on behalf of Wayne Brown, a Tulsa police officer who was wrongfully terminated because local political activists complained to the City about conservative social media posts Brown had made several years prior to his hiring as a police officer.

By all accounts, Brown was an exceptional police officer.  The “offending” social media posts included an image of Donald Trump riding a lion with a Confederate flag in the background and a “blue lives matter” image.

None of these posts caused any controversy or disruption in the workplace whatsoever.  In fact, no one from the City police department knew (or cared) that the posts existed until a well-known anti-police activist, who was trolling the social media accounts of the officers, found them and complained to the Chief of Police.

Even though Brown’s post were fully protected by the First Amendment (they were speech made by a private citizen prior to his government employment commenting about matters of public concern), the lower court held that the interests of the police department trumped Brown’s fundamental right to free speech.

This is an exceedingly important First Amendment case.  The lower court decision must be reversed by the Tenth Circuit.

* On December 15, we filed a “motion for summary disposition” and request for attorneys’ fees and cost, asking a Michigan court to dismiss a civil lawsuit filed by three Biden electors against sixteen Trump electors.

Our motion asserts that the civil claims brought against the Trump electors fail as a matter of law and are in fact “patently frivolous.”  Consequently, we are asking the court to sanction the Biden electors and the law firm that brought this frivolous lawsuit.

We are representing four of the sixteen Trump electors in this civil lawsuit, which was filed in Kent County, Michigan.

All sixteen Trump electors are also facing a politically-charged criminal prosecution by left-wing Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel.

* The “Baby Doe” case rages on.  Throughout this month and from the moment we joined this important case, we were fully engaged in various discovery disputes—filing responses and replies to motions—in this remarkable custody case involving a baby girl who was rescued from the battlefield of Afghanistan and adopted by a Marine family.

Shockingly, Gitmo lawyers from large law firms want to take this little girl from the Marine family and give her to the Taliban.

In light of all that is going on in the Middle East and the resurgence, yet again, of jihadists, this case is becoming all that more important.  You can read more about it here.

* As noted previously, we are working on a major case that we hope to file within the coming weeks in California.

Thank you for your prayers and financial support.  We couldn’t do what we do without them!