Bill Meyer Show Podcast - Sponsored by Clouser Drilling www.ClouserDrilling.com - 04-06-26_MONDAY_6AM

Episode Date: April 6, 2026

Morning News and conversation then Jim Bopp Jr., from the Bopp Law Firm digs into a Supreme Court Case involving ROUNDUP, and why they have joined with a friend of the court brief against Monsanto.

This hour of the Bill Meyer Show podcast is proudly sponsored by Klauser Drilling. They've been leading the way in Southern Oregon well drilling for more than 50 years. Find out more about them at Klausurrilling.com. Now more with Bill Meyer. Hey, great to have you here on Monday, April 6, 20, 26. It's going to be about 80 degrees today. A little bit cooler tomorrow than back down to just a little bit above normal, maybe some rain, some showers a little bit later on in the week.

Join the conversation 7705-633-770 KMED. How is your Easter Sunday? Easter go well for you. It did for my family. I ended up invited to visit a church here in town. Actually, the heritage, the heritage that's over at Grace Catholic, no, Cascade Christian High School. Cascade Christian High School. They have it inside one of the gyms there.

And our niece, Maggie, ended up having baptism after that. So we went through the church service and then ended up hanging out and watching that happened. And Maggie, 16, 17 years old and on her way to a pretty good spiritual life, I hope. It was a good deal. It was really, I have to tell you, they do quite, they had a ton of people. I have to say maybe 20 people, 20 people signing up to do the baptism yesterday.

Maybe that was an extra special day given Easter holiday. I don't know. But that worked out really well. But had a great time. Had mom over on Saturday, rather, and we had kind of like an Easter mimosa brunch and strata and all that sort of stuff. And I don't know. I haven't done as much yard work as I probably should have been over the weekend.

And I'll have to catch that up over this week, at least at this point in time. And here we are. What are we got going on? On some of our top stories here, we have U.S. Special Forces, this is from Defense News, U.S. Special Forces rescuing a downed airman in Iran. Very complex operation. So they ended up getting the person who was missing over the weekend on Friday and averting a potential crisis for President Trump. By the way, President Trump is going to be having a press conference later this morning on the war or the excursion or I don't know what it's being called today, but I think you know what we're talking about. 10 o'clock or so this morning, our time, West Coast time, that he'll be live and hitting that.

And so that'll be something to check out. I have no doubt, Mark, leave Van Camp and Robbins will be giving you some clips from that when it comes on. And anyway, President Trump announcing the rescue in the early hours yesterday morning, and the social media post described the operation in a mountainous area of Iran, one of the most daring search and rescues in U.S. history. And to that point, Politico reporting this morning, the downing of a U.S. fighter jet set off a scramble. An American, as American, rather special forces, they're reporting racing to locate that U.S. airman stranded inside Iran. U.S. intelligence officers mounting a bold plan to prevent Tehran from getting to him first. This is a pretty interesting story, I thought.

CIA spread word inside Iran that U.S. forces had already found the airman, and then we're taking him out of the country by ground. this according to a couple of senior administration officials. So we had some deception going on to kind of throw the trail off, right? And the faint bought them time for the CIA to locate the airman and quietly relay his precise whereabouts to the White House and Pentagon, adding that a couple of officials granted anonymity because of this. We're at least telling the story. U.S. Special Forces ultimately managed to find and rescue the airman late Saturday.

All right, so that is the latest. Another big question this morning is, who do you think is going to replace Pam Bundy? There's a lot of tongues wagging over the weekend about that. To me, the most obvious, because I think one of the things that I think we can all agree on when we observe the situation with Pam Bondi is that I don't think that she was enough of a attack dog. President Trump is looking for an attack dog. And of all the people who they've been talking about is being an attack dog. The one that comes to mind is not Ron DeSantis.

It's not Mark Levin, like some people have been talking about. It's nothing like that. Ron DeSantis, by the way, I like Ron DeSantis. But I still think there might be, well, of course, I don't know. You give him? No, no, I don't think so. I don't think Ron DeSantis is the temperament that President Trump is looking to hire. but to me the obvious choice is Harmeet Dillon.

Remember the former Republican lawyer from California? She is the obvious choice, whether the obvious choice ends up being made, I don't know. I know that Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, others kind of going down that road. But even having talked to Harmeet Dillon, although she didn't like me much for some reason, I guess I went off script when I had her on the show a few months ago. Oh, I got to tell you, Harmeet's people. people called and just blistered me after the interview I had with her because I guess I was talking about a case that Oregon had when it came to voter registration. I forget exactly what we were talking about.

This was a few months ago. But I went off script because I'm not one of these guys that has a script necessarily to talk to someone. It's just like, all right, if I'm talking to you about this, but, well, you know, hey, this question has popped in my mind. Can you do this? Well, that doesn't work in Washington, D.C. In Washington, D.C., apparently they want a script. And, all right, if you're going to be talking about this, you talk about this, and you talk about this only.

And apparently, I haven't talked enough of those kind of people to know this. And so, Harmeet's people were just blistering me after that interview. I don't know. I never told you that, really, you know, after it. But, you're never going to talk to her again. I don't know if they said that or not, but that was kind of the implied thread. You went off script. I thought I was asking a reasonable question, but I guess you don't do that to people in Washington, D.C.,

but honestly, I think that of all the people that are within the Trump orbit, Army Dillon is the one. I don't think there's anyone else that she could pick that's better and doesn't have the baggage. Because as we all know, what he was really hoping for was Matt Gates. He was looking for Matt Gates. He was looking for a pretty aggressive attack dog. but then the problem with Matt Gates, lots of baggage. Yeah.

So that's the story. I think it's Harmy, Dylan. What do you think? I don't think the temporary guy they have in there is going to be the one who is appointed permanently. But I've been wrong before. 7705-633-770 KMED. By the way, my email Bill at Billmyershow.com. Let's see.

What else we have going on? NBC5 reporting over the weekend. Rock Community Food Pantry. out of food. Yeah. That's something they're looking for from help from the community on that one. And Shauna Boutelle, who's the executive director of that, saying figures that it's probably because of what's been going on with the economy, et cetera,

and new changes in the snap situation. So, yeah, they're tightening up the Oregon Trail, the Oregon Trail card sort of stuff. So that's interesting story. Let me see what else I have in my... in my news file that I was writing this morning. Oh, the positive canine guy. The positive canine, you know, the dog trainer in Grants Pass, looks like that story is finally wrapping up.

Daily Courier had a story, 40-year-old Joseph Leroux, ended up pleading guilty 12 times, 12 times on Friday's court hearing over Josephine County Circuit Court. Five counts, second-degree animal neglect, two counts, first-degree theft, one count aggravated first degree theft and oh boy i got to tell you the uh the details coming out of that case pretty sorted about you know kicking the dogs starving the dogs the dog in training business and with his then-wife daniel loroo and his wife daniel downtown grants pass looks like that's all we could be facing 80 months in prison and that's uh what six years six years eight months

yeah what else do we have going on here um no more technical Temporary driver's licenses. These are commercial driver's licenses. Are going to be issued to people who are living legally, but they are not permanent residents of Oregon. These are truck driving licenses. Remember we had those, I don't know if this is related to that story we were telling you a few years ago when we had driver's licenses

and ballots that were connected and sent to, remember a local hotel? local motel here in southern Oregon. We had truck drivers coming in from Oregon, I'm sorry, from California, rather, and they were going and going to RCC to get their truck driving's license. And they ended up being tagged with voting ballots, too, later, even after they left, even though they were only here temporary.

But the story is that no more temporary truck driving licenses. When they say commercial drivers licenses, you're thinking semi-drivers, that sort of thing, for people who are not permanent residents of Oregon. And what they did was stopping this in order to stop the Trump administration from pulling millions of federal transportation dollars. That was the story there.

So I have a feeling that maybe those stories like the voting ballots connected to these temporary people. I know the Trump administration's been trying to crack down on all of the temporaries and the illegal aliens getting truck driving, getting truck driving licenses and then going out and mowing people down and driving unsafely and not really being held accountable, that kind of thing. So I guess this is all sort of connected. And I would imagine through the back door kind of the voting license situation too.

It's kind of our latest here at the moment. We have other headlines too. We'll go into. And what is on your mind today, huh? 7705. Dentistry. See all they have to offer at Central Point Family Dentistry. com and call for an appointment.

Dr. Steve Nelson and his staff are next to Mazadlon Mexican restaurant, just off Pine in Central Point. Hi, I'm Matt from Dusty's Transmissions. I'm on 106.7, KMED. 24 after six, kind of noodling through the stories of the morning and Phil's in Road River. Phil, how you doing? You wanted to give me a gentle reminder while getting a touch with the Clauser people, huh? Yeah, I was just when you had Greg Roberts on the outdoor report, and he said about our low water levels, and a lot of people have personal wells that live rurally, and I was just curious if I was going to make it through the summer. Well, yeah, I'd be really curious to see.

It's hard to say, but I am going to reach out to Kevin Gill, who runs Klauser, and I don't think there's anybody who probably knows more about that, given he's sticking holes in the ground everywhere, you know, to find the water for sure. Yeah, I live really close to the river, and I'm just, you know, I think that I may not run out because I'm probably just sucking out of the river. But, you know, people that live away from the river a little ways might be in trouble. Yeah.

And a lot of the irrigation water has been piped now instead of out of the open ditches. You know, that's been one of the key deals going on for a long time. And there were many people that were getting, I think, seepage off of those irrigation ditches for a long time. And there's fewer and fewer of those here in Southern Oregon. Yeah, and I live just above the old Savage Rapids Dam, and now that they can't dam that up and hold water and irrigate, then that might make things a little worse. Boy, you know, that should have been completed. And you think back at all this infrastructure, which has either been destroyed or not completed, just absolute nonsense the way this area has been run here, Phil. I wanted to add to your point, though, Klamath Water Users Association, they ended up announcing over the weekend.

Did you see what they ended up announcing about the water for the farmers, the ranchers? No, I didn't. Yeah, they're thinking at least 40,000 acres of farmland or ranch land will likely be idled this summer because it just isn't going to be enough water. And they still don't know the exact details, but yeah, it could be about a fourth of their land out in Clameth County. And within that water users association could be dry this summer. And they just want to make sure that they have enough for the actual crop land, I guess. It's, you know, later in the year, you know, for harvest time, that kind of thing. So they're cutting back and, you know, this is the reality for this year, for sure.

Yeah. Yeah, and I like how you like sarcasm. So, you know, things are going so good and ripping out all these dams. I think we should go ahead and take out Lost Creek, too. What do you think? Oh, they would love that. Yeah. Oh, my gosh.

That is, by the way, a gangrene wet dream because, you know, a dam is a dam is a dam. dam. Doesn't matter if it keeps the flood. It doesn't matter if it keeps civilization going. It doesn't matter if it controls water and helps fish and everything else. All it matters is that it's a dam and you've got to get rid of it in the way they look at things. So elections have consequences, Phil. It's all I can say. Yeah. With that being said, have you heard anything about the IP28 thing? I know they only needed about 20,000 more signatures. I would look for that to be on the ballot this November. It's going to make it. It's not going to pass, but I think it's about breaking down resistance to the people. I think bit by bit that we get conditioned that, oh,

yeah, yeah, maybe we should have, you know, laboratory meat instead of farm meat. And yeah, maybe we should let all our pets go. Of course, if I were to let my cats out, you know what happened immediately they'd be eaten by the coyotes in the neighborhood, but it's neither here or there. But that would be kinder. A kinder freedom for them, I guess, Phil. That's what we're looking at. Yeah. But it won't pass. I don't think it'll be passed. They don't even think it'll pass, but I think it's about conditioning us and getting more and more people primed to vote yes for it in the future, just not maybe this November. What do you think? I think most of them have pretty much lost their minds. And yeah, they'll just keep whittling

away until they get it unless we start voting the proper way and get some Republicans in there that haven't lost their minds. One must have figured, though, that Oregon, in Oregon, there's a lot of room for people who have lost their minds. And you look at some of the policy, and it shows, doesn't it? Yep, no more squishies either. All right. Appreciate the call.

Thanks, Phil. Thanks. All right. Phil from Rhode River. By the way, speaking of that, where is that story? I'm sitting down on the board right in front of me. Daily Signal reporting this morning, why California is leaving. Leaving California is paying off from middle class families.

California Exodus is quickening, they say. Census data published in late March highlighting a dramatic population drop in L.A. County from 2024 to 2025, the biggest population drop of any in the nation. between July of 2024 and 2025. 54,000 people leaving the county during just that one year of population. Man. And people are finding out that they have a better financial life here too.

Now, this doesn't stop, though, the blue states, like California and Washington and Oregon. Fox News reporting the blue states are plotting exit taxes to trap the fleeing millions. And billionaires as the tax revolts spread. Right now, coordinated new waves of tax proposals sweeping California, New York, Washington State, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Connecticut, they all believe the solution to their budget problem is to reach deeper into their most productive people. And if they leave, kind of like Travis Borsma leaving the state of Oregon, right, they want to charge them an exit tax on the way out.

an exit tax. You know, you're leaving because of our lousy tax structures. So we're going to make you pay all the way out. Of course Oregon's going to go in that direction. I have no doubt that if they could have taxed Travis Borsma, I don't know, one or two percent of his billions in wealth or something like that, the value of Dutch bros, you know they would have done it. Well, the other blue states are talking about doing that too.

What I find interesting is that Fox News was talking about, you know, exit. is exit tax. Is this America? Is this America? Well, you know, frankly, America does that to people who are trying to renounce their citizenship so they don't get taxed anymore if they become an expat. Trying to get rid of your citizenship is not real easy. And they'll make you pay a lot of taxes to do that. A lot of folks don't know it. It's all right. You run out of productive people. Tax the ones who are leaving, a penalty for leaving. How dare you want to leave our beautiful system? whether it's the Empire or whether it's the Empire, California or Washington, right? 631 at KMED, a 993 KBXG.

We'll catch up all the rest of the news here in just a minute. And then what am I going to be talking about? Let me look at my, oh, I can't wait to talk about this. Jim Bob Jr. of the Bop Law Group. And he's representing Stanford Health Freedom. It has to do with this roundup deal about getting rid of the liability for it. We'll talk with him about that coming up in the next few. It's tax season, and by now, I know you're a bit tired of the numbers, but here's an important one.

You know. Bruncheon.com. Bill Meyer's show is on. News Talk 1063, KMED. Proud to have Jim Bob Jr. on the program here of the Bob Law firm. Jim, it's great to have you back. Well, I guess this is the first time I've ever talked to you. I've received your releases here for a while. I needed to make your acquaintance a little bit sooner, but welcome to to the show. Good morning, sir. Well, thank you. I appreciate the invitation. Happy to talk to you in your audience. Now, you are a, is it a fair to say,

a public advocate law firm? How would you describe your firm specifically? I've been practicing law for 53 years and I have sought to advance the conservative cause. So I've been very blessed to represent many national and state-based conservative, not-for-profit organizations, Republicans candidates, PACs, and Republican Party organizations. I represented the Republican National Committee in the United States Supreme Court, winning a campaign finance case for them. So I do this sort of federal law, federal constitutional issues, because there are some related to this.

And so pleased to advocate for the tort system. and how it protects individuals in using products. Very good. And speaking of that, one that we have talked a lot about down here in southern Oregon because there's been all sorts of controversy about Roundup glyphosate, you know, these sort of things. Jackson County, even though it's a Purply County,

we ended up voting a number of years ago for going GMO-free in our farming practices. So, in other words, no Roundup Ready corn or whatever it is. down here in southern Oregon. None of that is permitted. And there's a lawsuit that I guess I just haven't paid much attention to. And I wanted to find out what your connection is with it, about Monsanto claiming that if the government approves a product label, that means that we can't sue over damages over this. And I'm wondering if you can explain what's going on. You're working with Stan for Health Freedom on this, isn't that right? I am. I'm representing Stan for Health Freedom, which is an advocacy group for informed consent by people to medical treatment and to other things that might harm them.

So it's a pro-freedom, pro the consumer, the patient, whatever you would describe them, you know, gets to make the decision about what chemical. would be introduced or they may be exposed to. So they're a very strong advocacy group and see the danger in converting what is most people have always viewed to be a minimal standard where in this case, the EPA in implementing the federal insecticide, fungicide, and rodentside act, requires. label with respect to certain risks that are known at the time. And Monsanto wants to convert that from a minimal that is a baseline to absolute liability, and that is very dangerous for customers and patients. Is that sort of they're looking for a Supreme Court sleight of hand that would

more or less implement a similar type of liability shield that vaccine manufacturers, for example, enjoy right now? Yeah, the COVID, but it's not general. It was COVID, the COVID vaccine and occasionally others. And, of course, that's a good example of the dangers. That is, when you convert government regulatory process, which is not designed, to investigate the decision-making process of the applicant, you know, who's wanting to have, be approved with a certain label. It's not designed to do that.

And so what we saw in COVID's absolute immunity from suit for the COVID vaccine is, which we now know, is many of the claims for the the drug were known to be false at the time and that there were known dangers, which the manufacturers of those drugs did not disclose. And many people have been injured as a result. And we still don't know the scale, even though it could be quite large, of the damage that was done by use of that drug. So you want a balanced system. You want federal regulatory regime that establishes minimal standards from the get-go.

But the tort system is a backstop. It means that if people are injured, there is an adversary-ill system with discovery in order to investigate what the company really did know at the time, or has subsequently learned about the dangers of the product, and therefore should be warning people about those. In this case, Monsanto, as a result of litigation, that has resulted in very significant damage awards. Well, we're talking billions, isn't that right, Jim?

Billions of... 11 billion dollars have been paid to various people who have been injured, in other words, got cancer in this case, from the use of an exposure to Ronda. It was found in those cases that Monsanto had ghost written certain scientific articles, which would then publish and they relied upon in the regulatory process. They suppressed adverse genotoxicity findings and sought to influence the agency's review, process, and that was part of the evidence that resulted in very significant damage awards against Monsanto. Without the tort process, we would never have found that out, nor would

these injured and wrong parties who got cancer. Would it be compensated? I know that, you know, it's interesting, Jim, the relationship. By the way, I'm speaking with Jim Bob Jr. of the Bop law firm. It's interesting how people have a love-hate relationship. I imagine you would experience this too within the, you know, the tort forms, the tort lawyers, you know, that sort of thing. And yet, it's, there are a problem until you need one. Have you noticed that? I bet that happens a lot within your business. It's like, well, you're thinking, oh, those attorneys that are going and digging into it stuff.

But it's really about setting a wrong right, isn't it? That's really what you're all about. Yeah, and that's what its purpose is. And I'm not a tort lawyer. I mean, I've handled a very few of those cases early in my practice. I mean, I'm a campaign finance and election law, not-for-profit law, campaign, you know, constitutional litigator. But, you know, and there have been excesses,

and there have been adverse effects that need to be dealt with. But, of course, that's true with any system. You know, you fine-tune the system, not do what, Monsanto is seeking create total immunity from any injury under any theory, under any circumstances that would result from a known danger of the product that the company does not disclose because it's not on the government-required label. Would you agree that some of our challenge has been the fact that there's so much of a revolving door between government regulatory agencies into the companies that they used to once regulate.

I mean, boy, talk about an undue influence or, you know, perverse incentives. And there's a lot of reasons not to rely upon government to do things, all right? And generally, that is my approach, is a government should only be doing really critical things because there's many, you know, problems with their decision-making process. You know, part of it is their responsiveness to put to political pressure and, you know, efforts by institutions or entities, you know, what we call it corporate cronyism in the conservative movement. We're not for that.

No. We're not for corporations getting bennies out of the government, that they're not. not that the market won't give them. But this, you know, tort liability is part of the market regulation. That is ex post facto, you know, examination of whether or not somebody who ends up injured by use of a product that the company should have new of the risk and should have disposed it. I mean, we have a right of bodily integrity.

It's in the Constitution. is protected by all sorts of different mechanisms, you know, informed consent to medical treatment, you know, advanced knowledge and warnings about products and their danger. These are all part of our own protection of our own bodily integrity. And so there is good reasons for this. There can be excesses that need to be fine-tuned and dealt with. But we're not talking about that.

We're talking about total liability for everything. And that is just intolerable. Yeah, I would agree with you, Jim. Jim, Bob, from the Bob law firm once again. I imagine, though, that President Trump has, you know, always seeking that balance, as you were talking about earlier in the talk. And I was kind of scratching my head because it was a few weeks ago that President Trump did issue an executive order prioritizing the production of global.

lifeosate, which is what is in Roundup, saying that the herbicide is critical to the nation's security. Well, that might be one thing to make sure and keep it going in one respect or another, but on the other hand, protecting that for use by farmers responsibly doesn't mean that you shouldn't be able to sue for it. Is that kind of the way that you're looking at it? You know, the use of it? That is. That is the way I'm looking at it. I mean, if something can be considered to be, you know, have even critical importance, but that doesn't mean that people who are injured by the use of it as a result of known risk that were not disclosed should not be protected. So it's a balancing here that Monsanto is not seeking a balance. They're seeking a one-way

street of total immunity from ever being held into account for full. failure to disclose to customers known risk of the product. And that's really an extreme position. And from what I understand now, most of us, if we go and we buy a gallon of roundup, it's not actually glyphosate. They're using a different formula now because of all of this. And only the professionals and the, you know, the real serious professionals apparently are getting access to as much of the glyphosate as it once was. So, and what is the status of this? lawsuit Monsanto company Vee Dernel that you've gotten involved in? Well, I filed on behalf of Stanford Health Freedom, a friend of the court brief,

Mekis Curia brief, in the United States Supreme Court. Because this claim by Monsanto that they're totally immune from any liability for the damages that they create and injuries to customers is going to be decided by the court. They're going to argue it. It's going to be argued this month. The briefing has now been completed. So we would have a decision on this by the 1st of July. All right. Very good. Jim, how can people find out more about your law firm and what you do? And I appreciate, you know, attorneys like yourself doing this. Or can you find out more? Well, hopefully, it's simple. It's boplaw.com. That's B-O-P- as in Paul, P- as and Paul.

law.com. And that's my website, and they can find out about my firm and what we do. All right. Very good. Jim. Final question I have for you, this is off the beaten topic that we had been discussing. But I guess the Trump administration is now on the search for a new attorney general after Pam Bondi was shown the door the other day. I'm kind of laying odds on Harmeet Dillon. I think he's looking for kind of an attack dog. Is that anything you've given any thought to who you think might be favored on some of the other? like this? What do you think? You know, and I'm a very supportive of Trump and the administration.

And, you know, but these kind of appointments have a lot of personal aspects to it, you know, personalities, the extent to which the relationship between the president and the person. I mean, Hermione, I know her. She's a very, very competent and fine lawyer should make a fine attorney General, but there is, frankly, a deep bench of conservative lawyers who are accomplished, who could, you know, do a job like this. So, you know, she would be on my list, but there are certainly others. And, of course, what I really look forward to is another appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Trump. Agreed. Certainly I would appreciate that one, Jim. I guess, you know, the thing is, I wonder if maybe

people or maybe even President Trump was hoping to see more prosecutions, but isn't there a case to be made that prosecutions that actually stick take real time and there doesn't seem to be a lot of patience for time in such matters? What do you think about that being involved? Well, the way I view this, and it really has to do with any case I become involved in, and that is any case that is pursued. They should have what I call objective legal merit, which means if you set aside, you know, human fallibilities or or people with, you know, judges with ideological agendas or something like that, that under existing law, you should prevail.

And so I'm not in favor of pursuing, you know, things unless they really have serious merit. I don't think the legal systems should be misused in that way. So just making your enemies that tormented you, tormented is not the proper use the way you would see that. I agree completely. In other words, the way I've always lived is the best revenge is living well and not pursuing people. unless there is a really objectively meritorious injury that deserves, you know, compensation or being pursued. So, I mean, there's way – and but frankly, it's also my opinion that there's no shortage of people in prior administrations that have committed serious wrongs, that have avoided accountability, and that for our system to work, we do have to hold accountable. people in prior administrations if we expect future accountability by politicians and bureaucrats.

But you're very specific about it. You have to have really tight cases on this. You can't be just throwing something at the prosecutorial wall and seeing what sticks. Is that kind of how to interpret that? Yes. And unfortunately, Trump was a victim of several of those attempts. And I don't want to see them repeated by Republican administrations. I'd like to, you know, move into a place where we balance accountability, which is critically important, with making sure that in holding anyone accountable, that we have a very meritorious case. James Bop, Jr., Bop Law Firm, the Bop Law Firm.

I appreciate your talk so much. Good talk, by the way, Jim, and we'll have you back. You take care. And thank you so much. Thank you. My pleasure. This is the Bill Meyer Show, and you're on KMED and 993, K-H. BXG. Waking up Monday morning.