Discover more from Bailiwick News
Bridges v. Houston Methodist Hospital
Court decisions supporting the conclusion that vaxx recipients are military targets, enemy combatants, chattel slaves or similar legal status in which consent is moot.
Below are lightly-edited email exchanges from the last couple of weeks, about Bridges v. Houston Methodist Hospital as a primary indicator that the legal status of each recipient of unidentified, unregulated, injectable biochemical products has been something other than a ‘human subject’ or ‘clinical trial subject’ (in relation to a clinical investigator) or ‘patient’ (in relation to a physician).
This has been true since January 2020 when then-HHS-Secretary Alex Azar established ‘public health emergency’ conditions on American soil, which remain in effect to the present and will remain in effect until Congress repeals 42 USC 247d, 21 USC 360bbb, and all their related statutory tentacles, through which Congress has transferred — to the HHS Secretary — unilateral, unreviewable power to declare and maintain public health emergency status and direct biochemical attacks on the American people camouflaged as ‘vaccination’ programs.
From the June 12, 2021 order by USDJ Lynn N. Hughes, dismissing the case:
On April 1, 2021, Houston Methodist Hospital announced a policy requiring employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 by June 7, 2021, starting with the leadership and then inoculating the remaining workers, all at its expense.
Jennifer Bridges and 116 other employees sued to block the injection requirement and the terminations. She argued that Methodist is unlawfully forcing its employees to be injected with one of the currently-available vaccines or be fired. The hospital has moved to dismiss this case.
Bridges dedicates the bulk of her pleadings to arguing that the currently-available COVID-19 vaccines are experimental and dangerous. This claim is false, and it is also irrelevant. Bridges argues that, if she is fired for refusing to be injected with a vaccine, she will be wrongfully terminated. Vaccine safety and efficacy are not considered in adjudicating this issue.
Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker. To succeed on a wrongful termination claim, Bridges must show that (a) she was required to commit an illegal act – one carrying criminal penalties, (b) she refused to engage in the illegality, (c) she was discharged, and (d) the only reason for the discharge was the refusal to commit an unlawful act…
Worth noting, Judge Hughes declared Bridges’ assertion that the ‘vaccines’ are experimental and dangerous to be “false,” without allowing discovery or conducting evidentiary review.
Bridges v. Houston Methodist Hospital case documents, and a related US Department of Justice slip opinion:
I’ve been struggling a bit more than usual with worry the last couple of weeks, so am not able to concentrate well enough to format this more formally.
Because I’m struggling with worry, I’m praying more and have been looking for prayers specific to worry, anxiety and despair.
St. Teresa prayer below, along with Isaiah 54:17.
Email 1 from reader:
…looking for a document or memo you wrote mentioning the pseudo-legal frameworks that characterize civilians as enemy combatants for the purposes of deployment of countermeasures.frameworks that characterize civilians as enemy combatants for the purposes of deployment of countermeasures.
My reply to email 1:
One of the posts where I addressed that is this one:
…Now that I understand the kill box construction better, there are several more laws that should be repealed by Congress and/or nullified by federal and state courts, because their invocation under the Covid-19 pretext created redundancy around the state of emergency or state of war, through which the totalitarian state has tightened its grip.
Those laws include:
50 USC Ch. 33, War Powers Resolution or War Powers Act. Passed by Congress in 1973 and, through the Sept. 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), also passed by Congress, construed as putting the United States in a permanent state of war (Global War on Terror, including bioterror) against every country in the world, with no limitations in time or geographically, with every individual man, woman and child presumptively classified as a threat, combatant and enemy target.
50 USC Ch. 34, National Emergencies Act. Passed by Congress in 1976 and cited in George W. Bush’s Sept. 14, 2001 Proclamation 7463, Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks and renewed every year since, and in Donald Trump’s March 13, 2020 Proclamation 9994, Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19) Outbreak, renewed every year since.
42 USC Ch. 68, Disaster Relief Act, also known as the Stafford Act. Passed in 1988, cited by Donald Trump in his March 13, 2020 Stafford Act declaration and renewed every year since.
These three laws supply the pretextual basis for designating all people as presumptive terrorists, insurrectionists, combatants or pre-communicable, asymptomatic, deadly disease-carriers, such that killing us can be construed as legal and in the interests of national security, for so long as Congress and courts fail to repeal or nullify them.
Blurring the line between combatants and non-combatants and using bioweapons as political tools also comes up in the PNAC Rebuilding America's Defenses report:
Aug. 26, 2022 - Project for a New American Century - Rebuilding America’s Defenses, Sept. 2000. One of the blueprints for the moral disarmament of America, and some thoughts about moral rearmament.
…Unilateral disarmament as official American geopolitical strategy would challenge the long-ascendant strategic posture advocated by Jacob Rothschild, George Soros, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Samantha Power and the other poster-boys and poster-girls of the Project for the New American Century.
They’ve articulated it many times, including through a report called Rebuilding America’s Defenses, published in 2000, which should more accurately be titled Doubling Down on the American Government’s Offenses.
The PNAC position is often attributed to neo-conservative Republicans but has been pursued and implemented just as forcefully by neo-liberal Democrats in Congress, the Presidency and the federal courts.
Its proponents have successfully cornered the United States government into governing as if America can and should amass more armaments and commit preemptive, first-strike aggression against other countries — exemplified by the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 — because other agents will develop and use such weapons and first-strike principles whether the US does or not.
It’s mutually-assured destruction taken to the next logical steps.
Excerpt from Rebuilding America’s Defenses:
“…Although it may take several decades for the process of transformation to unfold, in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and sea will be vastly different than it is today, and “combat” likely will take place in new dimensions: in space, “cyber-space,” and perhaps the world of microbes…Space itself will become a theater of war, as nations gain access to space capabilities and come to rely on them; further, the distinction between military and commercial space systems – combatants and noncombatants – will become blurred. Information systems will become an important focus of attack, particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces. And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”
It’s such a tidy elision, and illuminates so brightly the dual-use dilemma for state sponsors.
Biological warfare as terrorism: “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life…intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping…”
Biological warfare as “a politically useful tool.”
The transformation of the former into the latter, through the merger of the global police surveillance state with the global pandemic population control levers.
Otherwise, the designation of victims as some form of enemy target or combatant is implied by the fact that the products are weapons and informed consent is moot, meaning that use on non-consenting human beings is deemed legal, which translates to attack on a military target.
The two key documents for that are the July 2021 DOJ opinion combined with the June 2021 court decision in Bridges v. Houston Methodist Hospital.
June 12, 2021 - Bridges v. Houston Methodist Hospital, 543 F. Supp. 3d 525 (S.D. Tex. 2021). Federal judge ruled that informed consent doesn't apply to hospital workers, because the injections are government-authorized under FDA Emergency Use Authorization, therefore not part of experimental clinical trials or ordinary medical treatments, therefore hospital employees cannot be legally construed as human subjects or ordinary patients, therefore they have no individual, Constitutional liberties; rights to privacy and against government violation of bodily integrity; or rights to be secure in their persons against warrantless search and seizure.
I’ve written about it in these posts:
July 5, 2022 - Possibilities for proving intent. The work product of attorneys Susan E. Sherman, Wen W. Shen, Dawn Johnsen and the July 6, 2021 Department of Justice legal opinion.
…Dismantling informed consent was the start of the cover-up for the government’s Covid-19 crimes, and the dismantling process predated Covid-19, providing evidence of intent.
The primary document is the July 6, 2021 slip opinion written by Deputy Attorney General Dawn Johnsen, which defines the legal question as: 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.
Attorney Johnsen did not address the question of whether any public or private entity is ever authorized to suspend informed consent rights and engage in coerced bodily trespass.
She addressed instead whether any Congressional law specifically prohibited suspension of informed consent, and finding none in her review, concluded that Congress permitted entities to use coercion to violate bodily integrity through mandated medical treatment.
…The DOJ attorney concluded that no legal impediment to ‘vaccine’ mandates by public and private entities exists…
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.
Email 2 — from another reader who was on the thread for Email 1:
What specific law outlines us as “enemy combatants” and allows for “countermeasures” including “bio-weapons” against a domestic population?
You addressed this previously in an email. If you have something really succinct in a paragraph or so form, that would be great though.
I don’t have a more succinct version of the enemy combatants framing right now.
It’s very similar to the vaccine/bioweapon structure, in that the laws and court cases don’t directly state that all civilians are enemy combatants.
The laws and court cases simply deny — with lots of obscuring language in orders dismissing cases — that any of the rights (such as informed consent and rights against assault and homicide) normally held by non-combatants, apply to targets of EUA products during Public Health Emergency conditions.
In the same way that none of the rules that normally apply to pharmaceutical manufacturing, distribution and dispensing, apply to EUA products during Public Health Emergency conditions.
Setting aside for now the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, PATRIOT Act and other mechanisms, the main documents through which this bait and switch type maneuver has been done are the July 2021 DOJ opinion, combined with the June 2021 ruling in Bridges v. Houston Methodist, which was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in June 2022.
Key paragraphs in Bridges v. Houston Methodist ruling by USDJ Lynn N. Hughes, US District Court, Southern District of Texas:
…Bridges does not specify what illegal act she has refused to perform, but in the press-release style of the complaint, she says that she refuses to be a "human guinea pig." Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties. She is refusing to accept inoculation that, in the hospital's judgment, will make it safer for their workers and the patients in Methodist's care...
She also argues that injection requirement violates federal law governing the protection of "human subjects." She says that the injection requirement is forcing its employees to participate in a human trial because no currently-available vaccine has been fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Federal law requires participants give legal, effective, and informed consent before participating in a human trial; this consent cannot be obtained through coercion or undue influence. Bridges says the threat of termination violates the law...
Bridges has again misconstrued this provision, and she has now also misrepresented the facts. The hospital's employees are not participants in a human trial. They are licensed doctors, nurses, medical technicians, and staff members. The hospital has not applied to test the COVID-19 vaccines on its employees, it has not been approved by an institutional review board, and it has not been certified to proceed with clinical trials. Bridges's claim that the injection requirement violates 45 C.F.R. § 46.116 also fails.
She also says that the injection requirement is invalid because it violates the Nuremberg Code, and she likens the threat of termination in this case to forced medical experimentation during the Holocaust. The Nuremberg Code does not apply because Methodist is a private employer, not a government. Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible. Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.
Although her claims fail as a matter of law, it is also necessary to clarify that Bridges has not been coerced. Bridges says that she is being forced to be injected with a vaccine or be fired. This is not coercion. Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus. It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer. Bridges can freely choose to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine; however, if she refuses, she will simply need to work somewhere else.
Again worth noting: Judge Hughes ruled it improper to equate injection of ‘Covid-19 vaccines’ with Nazi medical experimentation in concentration camps, by describing the Nazi program as “causing pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases death.”
But he did not allow discovery or conduct evidentiary review through which the court could have assessed the data that ‘Covid-19 vaccines’ also cause pain, mutilation, permanent disability and death. That data was available to the manufacturers and FDA reviewers no later than Sept. 25, 2020, to DoD officials no later than Dec. 14, 2020, and even more conclusively to manufacturers, FDA and DoD by April 2021.
April 2021 was the point at which private employers like Houston Methodist Hospital — in response to federal coercion and bribes through Medicare and Medicaid funding programs — were imposing mandates on employees by offering prizes for compliance and threatening termination for refusal.
I highlighted the key sentence in Judge Lynn’s ruling in bold, because it lists what hospital employees are “not,” according to the judge, including that they are not clinical trial subjects in a clinical trial, with any attendant rights as subjects of experimentation. He cites to the cornerstone EUA law: 21 USC 360bbb.
But in describing what hospital employees are, he does not say patients, citizens, individual human beings with inherent personhood or civilians with rights to informed consent, bodily integrity or due process.
He simply says they’re doctors, nurses and other hospital employees, defining them exclusively in relationship to their employers.
And because he goes on to find that therefore, the hospital can do what it wants to them, or else they have to find work elsewhere, he implicitly recognizes them as slaves or enemy combatants, who have no claim to control over their own bodies or preservation of their own lives.
My view is that Dawn Johnsen in the DOJ coordinated with the judge, and he coordinated with her, so that his June 2021 ruling would align with what she would argue in her July 2021 legal opinion, citing for support his ruling as precedential case law.
The deception, obscuring of truth and misdirection are extremely well-coordinated and well-executed.
This is just another example of it.
Let Nothing Disturb You (St. Teresa of Avila)
Let nothing disturb you,
Let nothing frighten you,
All things are passing away:
God never changes.
Patience obtains all things.
Whoever has God lacks nothing;
God alone suffices.
No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper: and every tongue that resisteth thee in judgment, thou shalt condemn. This is the inheritance of the servants of the Lord, and their justice with me, saith the Lord.