Contracting for facilitation of crimes: contract killing and biomunitions hitmen.
Contracting for facilitation of crimes: contract killing and biomunitions hitmen.
A third double-bind argument built on the truth that the products are prohibited bioweapons designed to injure and kill, not regulated medicinal products designed to protect and heal.
Excellent new interview of Sasha Latypova by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
March 15, 2023 - Militarized Healthcare with Sasha Latypova (60 min)
Several months ago, while thinking about Brook Jackson’s case, I started developing some argument frameworks to help plaintiffs, attorneys and judges get past some of the biggest legal obstacles and move closer to justice for the Covid-19 crimes and criminals.
I published one such exploration in November.
Nov. 16, 2022 - Some thinking about tampering with evidence and spoliation
…the men and women doing these things are not acting in their official capacities or under color of legal authority but are rogue actors….
Trump, Biden, Azar, Becerra, Fauci, Birx, Walensky, etc [have been] impersonating federal officials (18 USC 912).
We need plaintiffs, fact patterns and claims that drive a legal wedge to separate the legitimate US Government and the people still operating under the US Constitution and legitimate federal laws, from the infiltrated/co-opted illegitimate US Government and the embedded agents operating as if the US Constitution has been suspended, under federal pseudo-laws through the fraudulent national emergency and public health framework.
Summarized: we need to get the US Gov in a position where it must either admit or deny that fraud + mass murder is the official, authorized policy of the US Gov., such that the identifiable people who are running the programs have recourse to legal defense services provided by the US Department of Justice, or get cut loose, declared rogue and are then opened to criminal prosecution in their personal capacities…
I explored this framing a bit more in January:
Jan. 16, 2023 - Dual-use government officials of concern
…I'm most interested in developing and supporting cases that force government defendants and defense counsel to first, admit that the evidence (the record of their public acts and documents) conclusively shows they've launched a covert war with their people, which is becoming widely seen and understood.
The government attorneys would then be compelled to choose between two defenses:
The war on the world is legal and the use of bioweapons to carry out official, authorized duties and orders to maim and kill billions of people, is justified and endorsed by the US government as an institution.
The war is illegal, such that the official government acts undertaken by named defendants, to conduct the war, have been done without proper authority, by rogue actors, who can and will be removed from power and tried for their war crimes.
To the extent the Department of Justice responded to a criminal prosecution of Kadlec, Azar, Gruber and Hinton by using the second argument, the war criminals would be subject to prosecution in their personal capacity, without recourse to sovereign, legislative, administrative or other immunities.
They would be cut loose from the government, and legally construed as people who committed the war crimes outside their official capacities, while impersonating federal officials, or while serving as agents of foreign invaders or occupiers.
The advantage offered by cutting the war criminals loose, is that it would leave the core governing institutions (legislatures, courts and executives) and the US Constitution intact…
I developed the argument a bit more in February, applying it to the bioweapons products known as ‘Covid-19 vaccines,’ as distinct from the people who pseudo-authorized their deployment.
Feb. 7, 2023 - On the impalement of embedded, treasonous, DOD-HHS bioterrorists on the horns of their dilemmas.
…The same double-bind can be applied to the manufactured prototype products…the products in use are bioweapons, not pharmaceutical drugs, devices, biologics or vaccines within the purview of FDA regulation.
There is ample evidence to demonstrate they were never subject to FDA procedures regulating or monitoring current Good Clinical Practice (cGCP), current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP), current Good Laboratory Practice (cGLP), current Good Distribution Practice (cGDP), dispensing, labeling, adverse effects, etc.
To defend, the US Government must take one of two positions:
The products are pharmaceutical drugs, devices, biologics or vaccines, but none of the FDA regulatory standards for safety and efficacy testing, manufacturing, distribution, dispensing, labeling were followed prior to dispensing and during use, [and they’ve lied every time they’ve told the public that safety and efficacy testing, manufacturing controls and safety monitoring had been/are being conducted]; or
The products are military bioweapons for battlefield use, and none of the FDA regulatory standards for safety and efficacy testing, manufacturing and distribution were applicable, legally required or necessary for deployment on military targets [so the truth or falsity of statements about ‘safe and effective’ and properly manufactured and monitored were always legally irrelevant].
I’ve been thinking more about the Jackson v. Pfizer contracts these last few weeks:
2020.07.21 DOD-ATI-MCDC-FDA-Pfizer Technical Direction Letter
Feb. 14, 2023 - Brook Jackson Attorney Robert Barnes Asserts that the DOD is a Patsy for Pfizer Which Sounds Exactly Backwards (Saga Hana writing at Substack)
Feb. 15, 2023 - European Commission regulations implementing the global pharma-military kill box. Also brief response to Robert Barnes’ recent post. - “…I don’t know why [Barnes] doesn’t seem able to see the bigger picture, that the bioweapons program and its legal support structure long pre-date Trump and Operation Warp Speed, cover many more “countermeasures” than the Covid-19 injections alone, and that his approach to Brook’s case — accepting the Pfizer + Gov claim that the products are pharmaceutical products (vaccines) subject to FDA regulation, and trying to argue on that turf even though the factual record makes it absolutely clear that no valid FDA regulatory actions occurred and the statutory/regulatory record makes it absolutely clear that no valid FDA regulatory action was ever required — yields the most important disputed issue to the Pfizer + Gov benefit…”
Feb. 16, 2023 - Written artifacts of informational warfare. - “…I’ve concluded that all of the written artifacts produced and published by governments and government contractors operating the medical martial law system (the kill box) are dual-use documents. They contain some truths and some lies. The true provisions are written with the intent to convey real contractual obligations among the parties: terms and conditions that will be fulfilled by the responsible party, and if he or she fails, will be enforced by the counter parties, through their exercise of contractual rights to extract financial or other penalties. The false provisions are written with the intent to convey the illusion of contractual obligations to non-parties. They list terms and conditions that will never be fulfilled or enforced by the contract parties. Those terms and conditions are listed for the sole purpose of misleading the public in our role as billions of marks in a global long con…”
Feb. 18, 2023 - Responding to Criticism Regarding My Statements on Pfizer's DOD Contract. (Sasha Latypova writing at Substack)
Feb. 27, 2023 - You cannot contract for a crime, but you CAN write a contract for it! Ask me how. Dissecting DOD contracts for covid countermeasures. Part 1 - Pfizer's "Base Agreement" (Sasha Latypova)
March 7, 2023 - Part 2 of "Contracts for Crimes" - Pfizer's ATI-MCDC Technical Direction Letter. (Sasha Latypova)
I’ve been thinking about the inherent problems faced by all the victims and lawyers who have been bringing knives to the active gun fight. They’ve been trying to stop a bioweapons-based, intentional, coordinated global genocide with polite requests that the financiers and arms manufacturers please comply with inapplicable drug safety regulations.
Bioweapons are not governed by drug safety regulations, even when the parties to the production and use contracts fraudulently call the bioweapons ‘vaccines.’
It bears repeating: bioweapons are not governed by drug safety regulations.
Bringing drug regulations to a chemical and biological war is counterproductive.
I’ve also been thinking about the concept of duress as grounds for courts to throw out contracts: grounds to throw out existing contracts and future contracts derived from current contracts through built-in extension provisions.
March 15, 2023 - Duress, State-sponsored, State-protected contract crimes, and the Bank for International Settlements
The contracts provide a third double-bind argument structure available to plaintiffs, prosecutors and judges, joining the first two: the people (authorized officials carrying out a legal war on humanity or rogue actors engaged in illegal war crimes) and the products (prohibited bioweapons that were never subject to drug safety regulation at all — because inapplicable — or medicinal products that demonstrably were never tested or regulated under otherwise-applicable drug safety laws during design, manufacture or use).
The clear intent of the contracts, as written, was to facilitate the design, production, distribution and murderous injection-into-human-beings, of prototype bioweapons, and to facilitate the fraudulent, public characterization of the prototype bioweapons — by financiers, manufacturers and individuals impersonating government officials — as ‘vaccines,’ for the purpose of preventing target awareness of and resistance to bioweapons attacks.
Under legal challenge, each contract signatory who signed with full knowledge and understanding of the contents, terms and conditions — would be compelled to respond in one of two ways:
He or she signed and executed the contracts with freely-willed consent to participate in commission of the contractually-facilitated lying and killing, or
He or she signed and executed the contracts to participate in contractually-facilitated lying and killing, but under duress, without free and unfettered consent of the will.
To recap:
Products designed to kill targets are weapons.
Products designed to kill targets are not vaccines, drugs or devices.
Fraud, theft, attempted murder and murder are crimes.
Liars, thieves and murderers are criminals.
Passing laws, regulations and executive orders to facilitate crime, is crime.
Lawmakers and administrative officials who pass and implement unlawful laws and regulations are criminals.
Drafting, signing and executing contracts to facilitate fraud, theft, attempted murder and murder are crimes.
Contract signatories and contract executors are criminals.
You are the best.
Katherine your work is phenomenal. Thanka for doing what you do.