US Const Am V “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
MI Const 1963 Art X Sec 2 “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation therefore being first made or secured in a manner prescribed by law . . .”
US Const Art I Sec 10 “No State shall . . . pass any . . .Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts . . .”
MI Const 1963 Art I Sec 10 “No . . . law impairing the obligation of contract shall be enacted.”
US Const Am V and Am XIV no one shall

Discussing the motion filed with the Michigan Supreme Court. The United States District Court, Western District of Michigan Southern Division submitted certified questions to the Michigan Supreme Court in regards to the Midwest Institute of Health v Governor Whitmer case.

To see the brief Katherine submitted go here: https://restorefreedomkh.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Restore-Freedom-Amicus-Motion-Brief-Exhibits-080520-FILED.pdf

To see the Order from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court allowing Attorney Katherine Henry to participate in the case as Amicus, see: https://restorefreedomkh.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/161492-2020-08-12-Chief-Justice-Order.pdf

An intro…and info on the brief filed yesterday in the Michigan Supreme Court!

With this explanation of how the Constitution and laws relate, we can better understand Katherine’s brief In re Certified Questions from the United States District Court, Western District of Michigan Southern Division (found here: https://restorefreedomkh.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Restore-Freedom-Amicus-Motion-Brief-Exhibits-080520-FILED.pdf)

Katherine continues to go over the first hearing in the Court of Claims of the Legislators v Governor case. To see the Register of Actions of the case in COC go here: https://restorefreedomkh.com/qfcw

From what I can see, State Representatives are NOT very happy with the video I put out yesterday on HB 5672 – at least the 104 of them who voted in favor of allowing courts to mandate employees be microchipped AND severely limiting an employee’s ability to recover damages from an employer who forces them to be microchipped as a condition of employment. Those 104 State Reps voted against our personal freedom guaranteed in the Constitution, instead furthering both government and private sector invasion of our bodies and of our privacy in general. Some, like State Rep Michele Hoitenga, even call themselves things like a “foot soldier for the constitution.”

See my post from today (https://www.facebook.com/katherine.l.henry/posts/10157225539530718), which explains all of this in detail, and shows three images, where I wrote in red the changes they could easily make to turn this bill into something that would actually help employees. Make sure to keep telling your State Reps and State Senators that you oppose the bill’s court order exception and that they must add punitive and statutory damages to the remedies available to employees!

Katherine Henry- Attorney, Freedom Fighter & Defender of the Constitution

References I mentioned in the video I would add: “Punitive damages, which are designed to punish a party for misconduct, are generally not recoverable in Michigan. The exception is if they are expressly authorized by statute.” Casey v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 273 Mich.App. 388, 400 (2006)

Punitive damages “are not compensation for injury. Instead, they are private fines levied by civil juries to punish reprehensible conduct and to deter its future occurrence.” Adair unpublished COA case, citing Int’l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v Foust, 442 U.S. 42, 52 (1979)

Yet, Michele Hoitenga you voted FOR micro-chipping… Section 3 of HB 5672 allows an employer to fire you for not getting the micro chip implanted if there is a court order directing people to be micro-chipped. Also, section 4 severely limits the amount an employee can recover from an employer who illegally requires them to implant a microchip (no punitive or statutory damages allowed, only “actual damages” proven dollar for dollar by the employee). This is the actual bill … ://www.legislature.mi.gov/…/House/pdf/2020-HEBH-5672.pdf

It is on page 74 & 75 of the legislator’s voting records PDF here: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(z5y41r2ajl1av0h1mjtci1so))/documents/2019-2020/Journal/House/pdf/2020-HJ-06-24-058.pdf?fbclid=IwAR01oN3vdV2SUhBQgMurXMQolVC0oIG-kQOpnSmjxukmNuyDp5xRAjTpNBI

With it’s current language, HB 5672 is HORRIBLE and does NOT protect employees against micro-chipping. Section 3 of HB 5672 allows an employer to fire you for not getting the micro chip implanted if there is a court order directing people to be micro-chipped. Also, section 4 severely limits the amount an employee can recover from an employer who illegally requires them to implant a microchip (no punitive or statutory damages allowed, only “actual damages” proven dollar for dollar by the employee). This is the actual bill … ://www.legislature.mi.gov/…/House/pdf/2020-HEBH-5672.pdf Knowing how hard MVC fights for medical freedom, I am not sure why MVC supports this bill. If they removed subsection 3 of section 3, and added punitive and statutory damages to what an employee may recover in section 4, it would be a good bill. But as it is currently written, it is just awful for medical freedom.

“very concerning that she (me, Katherine) is saying this” … very concerning that I literally read the language of the bill out loud to the people of Michigan and that YOU and the other 103 State Reps that voted for it were called out for voting for it??? “the Microchip Protection Act is about proactively protecting employees”…yet you specifically allow for courts to order people to comply with microchipping AND you make it a huge burden of proof for an employee to be able to recover any damages from their employers for doing this…That does NOT protect employees at all – it severely limits their ability to recover an appropriate amount for an employer requiring them to implant something into their bodies!!!

Michele Hoitenga If you removed subsection 3 of section 3, and added punitive and statutory damages to what an employee may recover in section 4, it would be a good bill. But as it is currently written, it is just awful for freedom. There’s NO good reason for voting YES on it when it’s current language that specifically allows for courts to order people to comply with microchipping AND to make it a huge burden of proof for an employee to be able to recover any damages from their employers for doing this…That does NOT protect employees at all – it severely limits their ability to recover an appropriate amount for an employer requiring them to implant something into their bodies!!! You need to make sure the bill is good BEFORE you vote YES on it.

HB-5672, as passed by the House on June 24, 2020 (Introduced by Reps. Kahle, Reilly, LaGrand and Rendon) is NOT as good as they claim it is! With it’s current language, HB 5672 is HORRIBLE and does NOT protect employees against micro-chipping. Section 3 of HB 5672 allows an employer to fire you for not getting the micro chip implanted if there is a court order directing people to be micro-chipped. Also, section 4 severely limits the amount an employee can recover from an employer who illegally requires them to implant a microchip (no punitive or statutory damages allowed, only “actual damages” proven dollar for dollar by the employee). This is the actual bill: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2019-2020/billengrossed/House/pdf/2020-HEBH-5672.pdf
If they removed subsection 3 of section 3, AND added punitive and statutory damages to what an employee may recover in section 4, it would be a good bill. But as it is currently written, it is just awful for freedom.

The language of the bill states that “An employer may, as a condition of employment, as a condition of employment in a particular position, or as a condition of receiving additional compensation or other benefits, require an employee or prospective employee to comply with a court order that directs the employee or prospective employee to take an action described in subsection (1). [Subsection (1) includes having to:] (a) Implant, or undergo a procedure to implant, a device in the employee’s or prospective employee’s body. (b) Inject, or receive an injection of, a device into the employee’s or prospective employee’s body. (c) Ingest, inhale, or otherwise incorporate a device into the employee’s or prospective employee’s body.”

So, while requiring an individual to implant, inject, or ingest a device is ENTIRELY unconstitutional, the legislature passed this bill ALLOWING employers to force employees to do so, as long as a court has ordered it. So, as long as a court orders this unconstitutional invasion of an individuals’ body, the legislature fully supports it!

Further, the bill only allows for actual damages, Court costs and reasonable attorney fees, and an order enjoining (stopping) further violations. This means that when you are fired for refusing to get a device (microchip, etc.) injected into your body, you can only get the exact amount you can prove you have lost as a direct result of that. Punitive damages (to emphasize to potential violators that this kind of requirement placed on employees will NOT be tolerated), and statutory damages (which is a dollar amount the legislature sets to make it easier for the aggrieved party to collect money damages from an illegal act by the other party – in other words, the aggrieved party only has to show that the other party violated this law, and doesn’t require them to have to prove the specific dollar amount they are out) could easily have been included in this bill, but they were not.

So, not only does the bill allow for the unconstitutional invasion of a person’s body by their employer, but it also severely limits the amount of damages an aggrieved employee may receive when they sue their employer over it.

CALL and EMAIL your state representative AND your state senator to tell them this unconstitutional invasion of our bodies will NOT be tolerated!

To see the full bill as passed by the House, please see: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2019-2020/billengrossed/House/pdf/2020-HEBH-5672.pdf

An update on the Legislator v Governor lawsuit.

To see the COA & MSC Legislators v Governor case information, go here: https://restorefreedomkh.com/s4qb