ABC News recently interviewed John W. Howard on the lawsuits over new Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine policies.
The ABC News article is featured below:
John W. Howard files suit for ABC ‘General Hospital’ star
Fox News recently reported that John W. Howard filed a lawsuit over new COVID-19 vaccine policies for Ingo Rademacher.
‘General Hospital’ star Rademacher on COVID suit against ABC:
Without choice, ‘the government owns your’ body Rademacher exited ‘General Hospital’ amid a Disney-ABC vaccine mandate
By Charles Creitz | Fox News
After exiting “General Hospital” following almost two decades on the program, actor Ingo Rademacher joined “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Fox Nation to discuss his new lawsuit against Disney subsidiary ABC over its coronavirus vaccine mandate.
Rademacher, who was denied a religious exemption, told host Tucker Carlson that submitting to the injection would go against many of his beliefs, including religion.
The actor, 50, spoke of his elderly parents who still live in his home country of Germany, where he said they hike every day in the Alps and are on zero pharmaceutical medications at their advanced age, due in part to their longstanding use of homeopathic and other remedies for illnesses.
The injections from Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen/Johnson & Johnson go against that life tradition, while the mandate effectively cancels out a human being’s individual body sovereignty, he said.
“To me, it’s staying healthy and dying healthy as well,” Rademacher said. “Being injected with something like this COVID vaccine – personally, I don’t think I need it, and I think I should be able to make that choice.” He said that by submitting to the Walt Disney Company’s demands, which in turn are strongly supported by the federal government, he is giving away his body to officials in Washington, D.C. “If we don’t choose what to put in our bodies, we don’t own our body. The government owns you,” he said. “It’s so frustrating.”
Documents were filed by attorney John W. Howard on behalf of the actor on Monday, stating that Rademacher applied for a religious exemption to the mandate but was denied. He is also being represented by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. – the son of the late U.S. attorney general.
“I am entitled to a religious exemption against mandatory vaccination for COVID-19 on the basis of my deeply and sincerely held moral belief that my body is endowed by my creator with natural processes to protect me and that its natural integrity cannot ethically be violated by the administration of artificially created copies of genetic material, foreign to nature and experimental,” the actor wrote in an email to Disney’s human resources
team in October, per the suit.
Rademacher told Carlson he originally predicted a mandate would come down the pike after the Walt Disney Company began requiring workers at its amusement parks in Lake Buena Vista, Fla., to comply with such orders.
Earlier this fall, President Biden issued an executive vaccine mandate for most businesses and employees, but it has thus far been largely stymied or nullified by court decisions.
As ABC continues to go ahead with its mandate of the vaccine, other large organizations have paused or canceled their implementations – including the semi-federal entity of Amtrak, itself a 50-year cause celebre of Biden, for whom the Wilmington station is named.
The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, as it is formally called, temporarily suspended its mandate, which officials at the railway initially told Congress would cause service disruptions and cuts beginning in early January 2022.
ABC interviews John W. Howard on COVID vaccine lawsuits
ABC News recently interviewed John W. Howard on the lawsuits over new COVID-19 vaccine policies.
The ABC News article is featured below:
Principle, not politics
San Diego Union-Tribune November 16, 2004 by Phillip J. LaVelle
Who is John Howard, and why does he want San Diego’s mayoral election nullified?
To supporters of Donna Frye, whose write-in candidacy has put her a hairbreadth away from becoming mayor, Howard is probably a front for various anti-Frye forces:
For Ron Roberts, who seemed poised to oust Mayor Dick Murphy before Frye came along. For backers of the strong-mayor ballot proposition, who won but never envisioned Frye as mayor. For pro-sports team owners, perhaps. For Republicans, certainly.
Despite ties to some of the above, Howard says he is acting on his own, motivated solely by his firm belief that the city charter prohibits write-in candidacies in general elections.
“Principle matters,” he said.
“The Constitution of the United States and the charter of San Diego matter. They’re the documents from which we derive all the benefits of where we live, and if we don’t keep them inviolate, then we expose ourselves to deep, deep trouble.”
Critics, of course, would be less suspicious had he taken legal action before the election, before Frye’s unexpected surge. Frye calls his lawsuit “sour grapes.”
Read more…
Lifetime Achievement Award
John Howard Presented with the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award by Marquis Who’s Who
Mr. Howard has been endorsed by Marquis Who’s Who as a leader in the field of corporate, business and constitutional litigation
SAN DIEGO, CA, August 18, 2020, Marquis Who’s Who, the world’s premier publisher of biographical profiles, is proud to present John Wayne Howard with the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. An accomplished listee, Mr. Howard celebrates many years’ experience in his professional network, and has been noted for achievements, leadership qualities, and the credentials and successes he has accrued in his field. As in all Marquis Who’s Who biographical volumes, individuals profiled are selected on the basis of current reference value. Factors such as position, noteworthy accomplishments, visibility, and prominence in a field are all taken into account during the selection process.
Mr. Howard, of JW Howard Attorneys Ltd. in San Diego, first entered private practice in 1979. Hailing from an extensive background in corporate transactional and litigation expertise, he has successfully handled some of the most complex business disputes for clients engaging in numerous jury trials through verdict. Utilizing a wealth of personal experience, including extensive knowledge as a former inside and outside counsel for many significant corporations in the past, Mr. Howard and his team of talented corporate litigators boast an unparalleled record for winning. Additionally, they are known for drastically reducing the risk of claims and litigation.
Read More…
Just When You Thought You Were Safe
Hiring can be a grueling business, especially when you are looking for higher level or more skilled employees. You review resumes. You call references. You Google applicants. You conduct endless interviews.
Finally, you find just the right person. Time to relax. In the interests of space, throw away the resumes of those you didn’t hire. Get rid of your interview notes. What do you need them for?
Wrong answer.
Just when you thought plaintiff’s lawyers could not come up with any more creative ways to lighten your wallet, along comes a particularly imaginative one who claims that you discriminated against one of the applicants you did not hire and he wants money. Have to make a buck somehow. If the job doesn’t work out, sue the company that didn’t hire you. Nice work if you can get it.
Read More…
The Best Defense
A company’s best defense against employee claims is a statement of firm and clearly articulated standards and rules. Most businesspeople know that a good part of customer relations is the management of expectations. The same is true of employee relations. That is why it is critical that companies prepare, distribute and regularly update employee handbooks. They are your best defense against employee claims.
California is an “at will†employment state which means that companies can terminate an employee’s employment for no reason. Why, then, do we read of wrongful terminations lawsuits that end up in large judgments? They arise, generally, because the company has not managed the employee’s expectations and has not taken the time emphasize the employee’s at will status. Such lawsuits can be maintained if the company has, by word and deed, led the employee to believe his employment is permanent and that he could rely on having a continuing, and long, career with the company. (They can also arise when the employee is the beneficiary of an employment contract, but such contracts are typically extended only to top executives, so we need not address them here.)
Employee handbooks have been found by courts to be contracts between employer and employee and, as such, should spell out all of the terms of employment, such as vacation schedules and accruals, employee duties and rights, employee use of company equipment, hours, benefits and a host of rules that set forth the expectations on both sides. It should specifically state that it is a contract and emphasize that employment is “at willâ€. The existence of a handbook will be very important if your company is ever the target of a claim by an employee.
Read More…
Freedom is Alway Right
Are we destined to rehash the same debates over and over? On winning the senate primary, Rand Paul walked off the stage and directly into his mouth, igniting a firestorm when he suggested that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional and that he would not have supported it. Let’s put aside the fact that his reaction was the result of a cheap setup on the part of a radical leftist masquerading as a journalist. Let’s also put aside the boneheadedness of Paul’s staff’s having sent him right out of the box into the lion’s den. That, I take it, was simply the hubris of those who know they are a lot smarter than everyone else. Underestimating Rachel Maddow is a sure way to get shredded. And Paul was. We can even put aside the tone deafness of Paul’s reaction but what he did show is why you should never take legal advice from a doctor.
But what of his position on this issue? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 followed the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, each more expansive than the last. With the exception of southern Democrats, conservatives, in general, supported all three of the acts, Barry Goldwater’s having voted for both the 1957 and 1960 versions. He supported most of the Act of 1964, as well. His opposition was to Sections II and VII, those having to do with public accommodations and employment.
His opposition was principled. It was not a reflection of racism. It was based on his view that the Constitution did not allow for federal micromanagement of interpersonal relations and private businesses. His was a strongly federalist view based on a firm understanding of and commitment to the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states all powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution. It was a correct view of the original constitutional paradigm that gave substantial autonomy to the states and recognized that state government is the primary seat of sovereignty in our constitutional federal system. It was also a correct view of constitutional limitations on federal power and the exclusive power of states to regulate internal state businesses. It is certainly an arguable position based on the state of Commerce Clause jurisprudence and one currently advanced with credibility by conservative lawyers and legal scholars.
Recent Developments in the Law
Arbitration Clauses Are Voided.
In a series of recent cases, California and federal courts have weakened the presumption in favor of arbitration. As we noted in an accompanying article, arbitration has, for some years, been favored by courts and agreements to arbitrate strictly enforced. Many companies, following what we consider to be bad legal advice, have insisted on arbitration clauses in their various contracts on the mistaken idea that arbitration is quicker and cheaper than litigation. Companies have also often favored arbitration for the unstated reason that they believe arbitrators will favor companies they believe may send them more business and people with less influence will have less success before them, thus providing corporations a leg up in any dispute.
California and federal courts, recognizing this unstated and less than honorable truth, have, over the last several years, chipped away at the presumption of the enforceability of arbitration agreements, particularly with regard to consumers, employees and companies with little bargaining power in contract.
So, for example, an arbitration clause in a contract for an “extreme vacation†that involved mountain climbing, was found to be unenforceable because it was presented on a “take it or leave it basis†to the traveler and limited the damages to a refund of the money paid for the trip. As a result, his survivors were allowed to proceed in court with their claims. (Lhotka v. Geographic Expeditions, Inc.)
Read More…
Mediation
Litigation is among the most persistent problems in modern business. It is expensive and soul sapping. It diverts precious time and attention from profit making work to activities that merely drain resources. Sometimes it cannot be avoided. Sometimes companies get sued and have to defend themselves. Sometimes they fall victim to bad or dishonest business practices and must file suit to get whole.
When that happens, you need experienced litigators who have actually tried cases and are comfortable with going to trial. You need skilled strategists who can guide you through the system efficiently and successfully.
Recent years, though, have seen the creation and growth of alternatives to costly litigation. Hundreds of thousands of cases have been successfully resolved through mediation. It is a good system that enables people in dispute to find a negotiated settlement that saves them the cost and risks of litigation through trial. It is a tremendous business tool and it is important that you understand how it works, what it is intended to accomplish, its benefits and its limitations.
Mediation (sometimes called “alternative dispute resolutionâ€) is often confused with arbitration. The two actually have little in common. Arbitration is simply litigation by other means without the protections that are built into the court process. It involves the development and presentation of evidence. It involves hearings, briefs and arguments of law. It requires something akin to a trial and, in the end, an arbitrator makes a decision. One side wins and the other loses.
Read More…