Children’s Health Defense (CHD) today filed an amicus brief urging the North Carolina Supreme Court to overturn the dismissal of a case involving a 14-year-old boy who was given the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine against his will and without his parents’ consent.

In August 2022, Emily Happel and her teenage son, Tanner Smith, sued the Guilford County Board of Education and Old North State Medical Society after Smith was given a dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine — which at the time was available only under emergency use authorization (EUA) — by clinic workers at a school vaccination site. The vaccine was administered in August 2021.

Smith and Happel alleged battery, violation of a North Carolina statute prohibiting vaccination with EUA products without parental consent, and constitutional violations.

The trial court dismissed the case in February 2023 on several grounds, including that the defendants are immune under the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or PREP Act, and that relevant state laws are preempted by the PREP Act.

In March 2024, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the lawsuit.

Envisage Law, a law firm in Raleigh, North Carolina, arose out of perhaps one of the most trying and darkest moments in modern history, the Covid-19 pandemic. Many HEALNC members may already be familiar with Anthony Biller, one of the founding partners at Envisage. Mr. Biller and his partners, James Lawrence and Adam Banks, are courageous litigators who stepped up to the call and have led the charge against the oppressive and constitutionally suspect shutdowns and policies, challenging all levels of government, federal, state, and municipal, along the way. From representing clients by assisting in the drafting of religious exemptions in relation to Covid-19 vaccine mandates to challenging publicly and in the courts, discriminatory and unconstitutional policies and actions, the attorneys at Envisage Law have stood boldly for the principles in which they believe – freedom and the defense of individual civil liberties.

An Innovative, Freedom Fighting Firm Emerges

What folks may not know is how Envisage was founded and in what other areas of law the firm specializes. At the start of the pandemic, Mr. Biller was the managing partner at the Raleigh office of a national law firm, Michael Best, and a board-certified trademark law specialist, focusing his practice in the areas of intellectual property, corporate and business law and litigation. Seeing the impact of the shutdowns on his clients and the people around him, and desiring more flexibility to handle cases and issues that mattered to him personally, Mr. Biller stepped away from his role at Michael Best and joined with a group of predominantly business attorneys from the Raleigh firm Pinna, Johnston & Burwell, P.A., who specialized in corporate transactions, trusts and estates, wealth transfer and planning, and tax law. James Lawrence, who had worked with Mr. Biller at Michael Best, joined Envisage after serving as Deputy Counsel at the United States Department of Health and Human Services and as Chief Counsel of the Food and Drug Administration under President Trump. Envisage Law was born in early 2021 as a full-service law firm, offering a wide array of legal services with a shared goal of upholding the values of freedom, equality before the law, and the dignity of every person.

Envisage Law Attorneys’ Early Battles Against the Shutdowns and Mandates

Over the course of the pandemic, the conservative, libertarian leaning, Christian friendly reputation of the firm and its attorneys garnered both state and national attention. In the spring of 2020, Mr. Biller represented various clients, including ReOpen NC and North Carolina churches in early challenges to Governor Cooper’s pandemic related executive orders shutting down the state of North Carolina. Indeed, Mr. Biller obtained, on behalf of his client, the North Carolina Bowling Proprietors Association, Inc., the only state issued preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Executive Order 141’s restrictions on the operations of certain entertainment businesses, like bowling alleys, while allowing many other businesses to re-open during Phase 2 of the reopening process. Mr. Biller defended the issuance of the injunction before the North Carolina Supreme Court, likely contributing to Governor Cooper’s issuance of a subsequent order, relaxing the restrictions, which mooted the case before North Carolina’s highest court ruled on the issue. In 2021, Mr. Lawrence challenged vaccine mandates from the City of Raleigh on behalf of a coalition of first responders who resisted the City of Raleigh’s Covid-19 vaccine mandate, which included a ban on promotions for employees who declined the Covid-19 jab. His challenges included novel theories, for example, that the city was violating state law by denying employment to people based on their “genetic information,” as the Covid-19 vaccines are believed to alter the human genome by inducing the production of spike proteins in the body. The City of Raleigh moved to dismiss the claims. Before the court ruled, the City of Raleigh lifted its mandate. Even today, the firm represents high profile clients committed to standing against government sponsored censorship, particularly in the sphere of Covid-19 vaccine mandates and safety, mask mandates, and overall governmental overreach in violation of the people’s sovereign freedoms.

Prominent Freedom Cases Filed by Envisage Law Attorneys

Some notable cases include:

• Berenson v. Twitter, No. 3:21-cv-09818-WHA, (N.D. Cal 2022). This matter was the predecessor to Berenson v. Biden. Mr. Lawrence filed suit on behalf of Alex Berenson, a distinguished, former New York Times investigative reporter, to challenge Twitter after Twitter suspended Mr. Berenson for posting so called Covid-19 vaccine “misinformation.” Mr. Berenson asserted claims, which included breach of contract and violations of the First Amendment. While the court dismissed the First Amendment claims, it allowed the breach of contract claim to proceed based on communications that Mr. Berenson had received from a Vice President at Twitter assuring Mr. Berenson that he would “try to ensure [Mr. Berenson is] given a heads up before an action is taken.” It was through the discovery process and settlement of this case that Mr. Berenson discovered the extent to which White House officials and a Pfizer board member had been involved in Twitter’s decision to suspend him, information which precipitated the filing of Berenson v. Biden.
• Berenson v. Biden, et al., No. 23-CV-3048 (JGLC), S.D.N.Y. In this matter, Envisage Law represents Mr. Berenson,, who became a vocal opponent of the vaccine mandates and a courageous voice of “misinformation,” who was suspended from Twitter as a result of coercive pressure from White House officials. For example, according to a Twitter employee, one White House official referred to Mr. Berenson as the “epicenter of disinfo that radiated outwards towards the persuadable public.” Fighting back, Mr. Berenson sued not only the White House and involved officials, such as Surgeon General Murthy, but also former White House officials and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla and former FDA Commissioner and Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb, bringing claims, which include violation of the First Amendment and of 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(3) for violation of civil rights. The case is currently stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decisions in Murthy v. Missouri, in which the Fifth Circuit issued an injunction against the various federal agencies and officials, after finding a “coordinated campaign” “by high-level federal officials to suppress the expression of disfavored views on important public issues.” Murthy v. Missouri, 144 S.Ct. 7 (2023) (Alito, J., dissenting). Notably, the Fifth Circuit’s injunction is stayed as well. 
• Ussery v. Freeman, et al., No. 5:23-cv-00219-BO-RJ, E.D.N.C. This matter stems from the arrest of Monica Ussery, a determined and gutsy woman who was arrested during the first ReOpen NC Protest in April 2020. Initially, Mr. Biller represented ReOpen NC, a grassroots anti-shutdown movement, to seek clarification from Governor Cooper regarding any purported limitations on the First Amendment right to engage in political protests in his early executive orders. In response, Governor Cooper confirmed through counsel that outdoor protests were permitted. Despite this admission, District Attorney Freeman and City of Raleigh officials, continued t o harass and retaliate against Ms. Ussery for her anti-lockdown views ultimately precipitating Mr. Biller’s decision to file suit on Ms. Ussery’s behalf last May for various First Amendment and Equal Protection violations under the federal and North Carolina Constitutions. Based on bodycamera evidence eventually acquired by Ms. Ussery in her efforts to defend herself against pretextual charges of trespass and violation of the executive order, Ms. Ussery also brought a conspiracy claim against various state and local officials relating to their efforts to arrest ReOpen NC protestors in an attempt to deter further protests and to chill the free speech rights of those who dissented from Governor Cooper’s pandemic policies. This case is currently pending in the district court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
• Caudill, et al. v. North Carolina Symphony Society, Inc., No. 5:23-cv-00489-D-BM, E.D.N.C. This case arises out of the termination of three musicians from the North Carolina Symphony, of varying religious backgrounds, who submitted religious accommodation requests in response to the Covid-19 vaccine mandate imposed by the North Carolina Symphony. Not only were the Plaintiffs not permitted to perform, even though they had agreed to accommodations such as testing and masking, but they were eventually fired in June 2022 when the North Carolina Symphony claimed that it was an undue hardship to continue to provide them with unpaid leave. Mr. Lawrence filed suit on behalf of these bold musicians for violations of Title VII, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. This case is also pending in the Eastern District of North Carolina. 

In addition to the fight for medical freedom, Envisage attorneys advocate against censorship and injustice on various, controversial frontlines. In 2022, Envisage Law partnered with the Alliance Defending Freedom to file suit on behalf of Dr. David Phillips, a well-respected English professor, who was fired from the North Carolina Governor’s school, for teaching optional seminars critiquing critical theory and highlighting the lack of viewpoint diversity in higher education. In 2023, the firm also filed suit on behalf of Prisha Mosely, a well-known, courageous de-transitioner, against the doctors and other medical treatment providers who presided over her care. As alleged in her complaint, without adequately informing Ms. Mosely of the long-term health consequences and the permanent damage that the hormone treatments and eventual surgeries would produce, her trusted medical care providers told her these permanent changes to her body, the so-called “gender-affirming care,” would help her mental health issues. They did not, but they did cause permanent damage to her body. Envisage attorneys are privileged to come along side brave clients who have the moral courage to challenge the woke ideologies that are undermining the moral and political fabric of the nation.

Envisage Attorneys Continue to Oppose Unscientific, Groundless Efforts to Restrict Freedom and to Impose Regulatory Costs and Burdens on North Carolina Businesses

More recently, in January 2024, HEALNC and its members, joined with Envisage attorneys to successfully pressure the North Carolina Department of Labor to reject proposed rules that would have imposed obligations on employers to require masking and testing, as well as other expensive and onerous regulatory burdens on employers, in the event that governmental entities or non-governmental, international entities, such as the World Health Organization, designated an airborne infectious disease as a “public health emergency.” HEAL NC converted Mr. Biller’s nearly 50-page letter, which included the legal grounds for his objections and a detailed chart summarizing approximately 70 scientific studies demonstrating the general ineffectiveness or harms of masking, into a petition which HEAL NC estimates 18,000 people signed. 

Scores of people throughout the country have filed claims against Merck & Co. alleging severe side effects after receiving the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, Gardasil. These cases are consolidated here in North Carolina before a federal judge, and a handful of them have been selected as potential “bellwether trials” that could be heard in late 2024 or early 2025. While “scores” of cases may not seem like large-scale litigation, there are hundreds of cases currently pending with perhaps thousands more to be filed in the coming years.

Attorney Bijan Esfandiari, senior partner at the Wisner Baum law firm, is co-lead trial counsel representing young men and women with cases in the federal Gardasil multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Case No. 3:23-cv-00161, MDL No. 3036). 

According to Esfandiari, Gardasil’s efficacy for preventing cervical cancer is actually unproven, yet the vaccine is causing a constellation of autoimmune injuries to many who get the shot. He points to dozens of studies that link the HPV vaccine to autoimmune disorders like Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS), Premature Ovarian Failure (POF), Autonomic Dysfunction (Dysautonomia), Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), Orthostatic Intolerance (OI), and more. 

But while a look at the science would give anyone pause, Esfandiari concedes that most people probably have no idea that Gardasil has the potential to cause significant harm, and even fewer are aware that they have legal rights if they are harmed after vaccination,

“HPV vaccine cases are different from other civil cases against pharmaceutical companies,” Esfandiari says. “Federal law protects Merck by requiring people who sustained injuries after HPV vaccination to first file a claim in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) before being able to file a lawsuit against the manufacturer, in this case Merck. VICP claims are supposed to be filed within three years of the vaccination symptoms starting, a requirement most vaccinees are not aware of because they are rarely told or given writings explaining the requirement, despite another requirement that doctors convey that information, and they are rarely told that their symptoms are due to the vaccination.  In addition, as alleged in the lawsuits, Merck and its spokespeople have not disclosed the full true risks associated with the vaccine and instead have engaged in pervasive misleading advertising and promotion that Gardasil is purportedly so effective and free of adverse events that it should be mandated for all school-age children.

“So, we often hear frustration about the red tape that interferes with these Gardasil-injured people making claims, most of whom were children at the time they were vaccinated and had no idea their injuries could have been caused by Gardasil...because of that misleading advertising and lack of adequate warnings. We want to make sure that people have an opportunity to exercise their legal rights here and hold Merck accountable.”