An FDA Advisory Committee is considering imposing new and unnecessary limitations on what Compounding Pharmacists may use to create products that are needed by many people, especially seniors. Remarkably, the FDA Advisory Committee is reported to have only one member who has experience with Compounding. We filed comments for The Senior Citizens League and the Center for Medical Freedom with
Book: ‘Defining Drugs: How Government Became the Arbiter of Pharmaceutical Fact”
Bill Olson was honored to write the Foreword for the re-issuance of what may prove to be the most important book ever written questioning the authority of the federal government over the sale and use of pharmaceuticals. Professor of Pharmacy Richard Henry Parrish II originally wrote his book, “Defining Drugs: How Government Became the Arbiter of Pharmaceutical Fact” in 2003. Now
Center for Medical Freedom Support for Religious Objection to Vaccination Requirements
Today, for the Center for Medical Freedom, we filed comments with the Virginia Joint Commission on Health Care opposing efforts to terminate the religious exemption for school vaccination requirements.
Our comments were discussed in the Staff Report to the Commission, on page 7.
Link to comments
Sissel v. HHS
Our Sixth Amicus Brief Filed Opposing Obamacare
Today we filed our sixth brief opposing Obamacare, five of which briefs have been filed in the U.S. Supreme Court. Maybe this will be the case that will have this terrible law struck down as the unconstitutional monstrosity it has been since it was enacted in 2010.
Article: “More Government than America Needs or Wants”
Homeopathy 4 Everyone (“World’s No. 1 Homeopathy Medical Journal”) published our article explaining the latest chapter in the FDA and FTC’s war against homeopathic medicine. The article was written by Bill Olson and Jeremiah Morgan.
This article was reprinted in the following publications:
https://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/more-government-than-america-needs-or-wants/
USJF & TSCL — Comments with FDA on Homeopathic Product Regulation
Our firm filed comments on behalf of the United States Justice Foundation and The Senior Citizens League opposing efforts by the Food and Drug Administration to restrict access by Americans to homeopathic remedies.
Symposium — King v. Burwell SCOTUScare
Today, we were asked to participate in an on-line symposium sponsored by Casetext on today’s King v. Burwell decision.
Article Examining our Brief Opposing Deliberate IRS Misreading of Obamacare Statute
In this article, we reviewed our arguments in the Supreme Court in King v. Burwell.
King v. Burwell (Obamacare, Round III) — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in opposition the Obamacare healthcare “exchanges” created by the federal government contrary to the plain language of the statute.
The Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) authorized tax credits only for taxpayers who purchase qualified health insurance through an “Exchange” which was established by a state.
Duke Law Review Article on HIPPA Mentions our Work
Our comments on behalf of Gun Owners America, Inc. to the Department of Health and Human Services on proposed HIPPA rules were cited in an article by Stephanie E. Pearl, “HIPPA: Caught in the Cross Fire,” published in the Duke University Law Journal, vol. 64, no. 3, p. 559, 565, n. 39 (2014).
Dept. of Health and Human Services, et al. v. State of Florida, et al. (Obamacare), Amicus Brief for Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall et al. in the U.S. Supreme Court
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of Dept. of Health and Human Services, et al. v. State of Florida, et al.(Obamacare) in the United States Supreme Court in support of respondents (minimum coverage provision). The brief asked the Court to overturn two of its most extreme, and controversial, Commerce Clause holdings:
“The Government believes that this law is fully justified under
Virginia v. Sebelius, Amicus Brief for Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall et al. in the U.S. Supreme Court
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius in the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioner. This petition presents to the Supreme Court a clash between a federal law mandating the individual purchase of its approved healthcare insurance — the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”) — and a state law securing
Daniel Chapter One v. Federal Trade Commission, Amicus Brief in the U.S. Supreme Court
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of Daniel Chapter One, et al. v. Federal Trade Commission in the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioners’ petition for writ of certiorari. Our amicus brief was filed on behalf of U.S. Justice Foundation (www.usjf.net) and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund (www.cldef.org).
Our brief argues that the Court of Appeals erroneously
Virginia v. Sebelius, Amicus Brief for Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall et al. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on behalf of Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, American Life League, Inc., Institute on the Constitution, the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Public Advocate of
Federal Trade Commission v. Daniel Chapter One A Story of Government Suppression of Alternative Medicine
Bill Olson and Herb Titus wrote “Federal Trade Commission v. Daniel Chapter One, A Story of Government Suppression of Alternative Medicine” which covers our firms representation of Daniel Chapter One, a historical perspective of the attack on alternative medicine, the federal assault on dietary supplements and alternative medicine, the story of Daniel Chapter One, and the
Daniel Chapter One Reply Brief of Petitioners
On behalf of Daniel Chapter One (“DCO”), today we filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit the reply brief of petitioners. The DCO reply brief argues that the FTC brief unjustifiedly disparages DCO and the Feijos’ relationship to it in an erroneous effort to assert jurisdiction over a ministry. Further, the FTC brief’s claim that DCO’s ads created the
Daniel Chapter One — District Court Order
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the Daniel Chapter One (“DCO”) motion to dismiss, denied the government’s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from violating the FTC’s order, and stayed the case pending resolution of DCO’s appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Daniel Chapter One Motion to Dismiss and Opposition to Government’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
On behalf of Daniel Chapter One (“DCO”), today we filed a motion to dismiss the goverment’s complaint and a memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion to dismiss with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On behalf of DCO, today we also
Daniel Chapter One Brief of Petitioners
On behalf of Daniel Chapter One (“DCO”), today we filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit the brief of petitioners. The DCO brief argues that the FTC failed to establish jurisdiction over DCO and exceeded its statutory authority by misuse of its “reasonable basis” theory and test. Further, the FTC order is arbitrary and capricious, being the product of a
Daniel Chapter One — Court Order Denying Hearing on RFRA Claim
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the Daniel Chapter One (“DCO”) motion requesting a hearing on the DCO claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”).
Daniel Chapter One Reply to FTC Opposition to Motion for Hearing on RFRA Claim
On behalf of Daniel Chapter One (“DCO”), today we filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit a reply to the FTC’s opposition to the DCO motion requesting a hearing on DCO’s claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”).
Daniel Chapter One Motion for Hearing on RFRA Claim
On behalf of Daniel Chapter One (“DCO”), today we filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit a motion requesting a hearing on DCO’s claim that application of parts of the FTC’s modified final order substantially burdens DCO’s exercise of religion in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”).
Daniel Chapter One Emergency Motion for Stay of FTC Order
On behalf of Daniel Chapter One, this morning we filed an Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Review of FTC Modified Final Order (20 pages) with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, as well as appendedExhibits A-G (162 pages).