Bioweapon prototype deployments, informed consent, targeted enemies, state of war, doctrine of necessity.
Bioweapon prototype deployments, informed consent, targeted enemies, state of war, doctrine of necessity.
Orientation for new readers. More info at About page.
An email correspondent recently asked me if I had read Deputy Attorney General Dawn Johnsen’s July 6, 2021 opinion on the legal implications of the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) laws, in which Johnsen offered the Department of Justice position on the question (posed by President Biden’s Deputy Counsel, who was seeking DOJ cover for Biden’s executive orders and agency ‘vaccine’ mandates):
“Whether Section 564 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Prohibits Entities from Requiring the Use of a Vaccine Subject to an Emergency Use Authorization?”
The DOJ attorney concluded that no legal impediment to ‘vaccine’ mandates by public and private entities exists.
The email correspondent pointed out that Attorney Aaron Siri wrote an August 4, 2021 rebuttal letter and speculated as to whether American lawyers had missed an opportunity to challenge mandates on the grounds that the Johnsen opinion was legally weak.
There has been more discussion of the legal relevance of informed consent provisions in 21 USC 360bbb et seq. (the EUA laws) and 42 USC 247d et seq. (the public health emergency laws) over the weekend.
Paraphrased email discussion questions:
Why aren’t more attorneys filing more cases on grounds that 10 USC 1107a requires a Presidential waiver of informed consent before EUA products can be mandated on military personnel, and can’t be mandated at all on civilians?
And why are so many judges blocking or dismissing the handful of cases that have been filed, to prevent discovery and substantive argument?
I learned about the Johnsen opinion sometime in Spring 2022 through my research into the American Domestic Bioterrorism Program, and wrote about it a couple of times but haven’t yet found time to do a comprehensive analysis piece.
July 4, 2022 - Possibilities for proving intent
July 6, 2022 - More on the tiered coercion cascades
My take on the Johnsen opinion, along with other legal opinions produced by HHS and DOJ lawyers (i.e. Robert Charrow’s May 19, 2020 PREP Act advisory opinion) is that they’re not meant to be strong legal arguments.
They’re meant to throw enough mud around to keep the overall fraud, enslavement, murder and theft program going without judicial impediments or informed, organized, confident popular resistance.
I think Johnsen knew, while writing her opinion, that the products were bioweapons whose use could not constitute clinical investigations under 21 USC 360bbb-3(k) and related provisions.
I think she also knew that informed consent principles are inapplicable and do not apply to lawful enemy targets of military weapons used during a state of war, which is what all the people who took the injections are, in legal terms.
Aaron Siri probably did not understand that at the time he wrote his rebuttal.
So Johnsen set up a false framing of Section 564, pretending it relates to investigational or experimental drugs (that are instead bioweapons), and Siri responded from within the same false framing.
One of the email correspondents pushed back on the status of injected victims as lawful enemy targets.
I expanded on why I hold that view, and I’m working on a longer piece explaining the background as I’m beginning to understand it.
My take on the legal status of the victims is based on my initial understanding of the permanent state of war/state of emergency — as we’ve observed the effects during the Covid-19 Constitutional crisis — and the implications of the central bankers’ silent overthrow of the Constitution implemented piece by piece starting with the Civil War, if not earlier.
The central bankers and their national government accomplices see all of the people as legally enemy aliens or enemy insurrectionists and morally-insignificant chattel property or contract collateral that can be attacked and disposed of with impunity to balance financial books and for other purposes.
Those substitutions [converting citizens to enemy insurrectionists] form the broader, hidden legal platform that made it possible for Congress and US Presidents to build the bioterrorism-as-public-health program from mid-20th century to now.
Last night I read Siri’s rebuttal to the Johnsen memo and looked over my notes from my original reading of the Johnsen memo, and this morning I read more of the back and forth among the email correspondents.
In light of what I’ve learned in the last few months, I’m convinced that the whole project, as a bioweapons prototype deployment project, falls exclusively under 50 USC Ch. 32 - Chemical and Biological Warfare.
There are some notice and consent provisions in 50 USC Ch. 32.
But 50 USC 1515 authorizes the President to waive any part of the Chemical and Biological Warfare laws, under emergency powers during a declared emergency.
There may be a publicly-available document recording the date on which President Trump and/or President Biden invoked or extended 50 USC 1515 to suspend all prohibitions on use of chemical and biological weapons on American people and people in other countries.
But it may be classified and non-public as a national security document.
If that document exists — and the observable evidence of how the vaxx campaign has unfolded suggests it does — Trump and Biden waived all rights to resist/refuse administration for all potential targets (military and civilian) because under a state of war, state of national emergency, and/or state of public health emergency, all resisters are classified as enemy insurgents or enemy aliens.
Johnsen’s (and many other federal officials’) invoking of 21 USC 360bbb and 42 USC 247d in opinions, declarations and determinations, were, in my view, simply red herrings. Those legal frameworks were cited only to increase the persuasiveness and distract the targets from the core illusion: that biological and chemical weapons — primarily packaged as vaccines and in use for many decades — are medicinal products.
Put another way, a target of a weapon intended to kill him or her does not have any right, under federal or international law, to be informed of the imminent attack or to exercise a right to refuse to be attacked.
The applicable international law framework isn’t the Nuremberg Code and international and federal biomedical research and treatment ethics codes.
It’s the laws of war, with prohibitions on chemical and biological weapons dating back to the 1975 UN biological weapons convention and the 1990 US ratification of that convention under 18 USC 175, suspended under a fraud-based application of the doctrine of necessity framework.
The killers’ interest in keeping the real state of war between governments and people covert for a bit longer, combined with the well-armed US population, are, in my view, the only things that have kept them from trying to do gunpoint roundups and gun/needle execution programs in the US.
I might do a detailed analysis post about the Johnsen memo and the Siri rebuttal at some point, to flesh out this interpretation. But not sure when, because of other writing priorities.
The January 6 theatrics now make more sense when this entire campaign is launched under the Doctrine of Necessity.
If what you are saying is correct, Katherine -- that we are under rules of war -- the next question would seem to be "What are our rights, and how should we proceed? Thats only if it really matters, of course, since being at war with your own government pretty much means that all bets (and laws) are off. Would be interested in your thoughts when you have the time to consider and present them. (All in due course, I am sure.)