Discussion of litigation strategies built on full understanding that EUA countermeasures are, by definition, not regulated pharmaceuticals.
Updated Dec. 11, 2023
Related Bailiwick reporting and analysis:
April 25, 2022 - The investigational drugs that weren’t.
June 9, 2022 - COVID-19 injectable bioweapons as case study in legalized, government-operated domestic bioterrorism.
Oct. 12, 2022 - John Doe v. Azar, Kadlec and Gruber. First parts of draft 18 USC 2333 federal civil complaint (last updated January 2023)
Feb. 21, 2023 - Reconstitution starter pack. Supporting materials for people fighting on the litigation and legal reform battlefields.
As someone familiar with the law, if you could depose those who say that we can sue Pfizer for fraud now or have them under oath at a hearing, what questions would you ask them to expose the flaws in their understanding of the law? Or do you have an article with something like that already? I’m trying to compare and contrast the claims the different health freedom camps are making right now about PHE and EUA laws.
KW reply:
Can you be more specific about who (named individuals) you would like me to draft discovery questions for, and what the factual and legal claims that they’ve made are (with copies of documents in which they’ve made each factual and legal claim)?
If you have copies of filed complaints, or draft complaints that specific, identifiable people have filed or are thinking of filing or recommending that others file, and if they have indicated an interest in my assessment of their legal strategies, I’ll consider reading the documents and providing an assessment.
In terms of the legal strategies I support, I write about them regularly, and they’re all based on filing cases that make an accurate identification of the crisis that intensified in Jan. 2020 (constitutional, not public health), and an accurate identification of the products and programs involved (intentionally-toxic weapons manufactured and used to injure and kill military targets, not drugs, devices or biologics regulated for commercial consumer safety by the FDA).
Reader reply:
I don’t have anyone I know who is drafting a complaint, but I don’t know any attorneys who would know this area of law, either. I’m trying to discern why there is such disagreement in the health freedom/law world over PHE/EUA law, even though anyone can read it for themselves. The debate between “We can sue Pfizer for making a toxic product now” vs. “No, you can’t and that is a distraction from the DOD/HHS Constitutional overreach that is the real danger” seems like a significant fork in the road that we can’t afford to get wrong.
Clarifying questions based on the law can shed light on who is simply ignorant of the law and who is trying to distract from it for some reason. I was just curious how you would go about separating the sheep from the goats, so to speak, and if you could think of some questions that laypeople could ask experts to help with that discernment. I will continue to review your work to get up to speed.
SL reply:
Here is a post with detailed explanation and links and images of powerpoint slides written by FDA lawyers about EUA.
I also explain it in detail in this video:
Nov. 25, 2023 - FDA flooded the market with illegal drugs
For clarity, neither of us claims that Pfizer CANNOT be sued. They can and should be sued. We are simply pointing to the EUA law that must be correctly described in any lawsuit that is being filed, and the lawsuit must be framed with understanding of EUA law.
The question I would ask these people - do you understand the concept of EUA countermeasures under public health emergency? Is Pfizer’s product an EUA countermeasure? and so forth - ask them if they know the relevant laws. I am sure they know them, but want to mislead the public that this is not relevant, and Pfizer must be sued as if it is not an EUA and we are not under martial law PHE. That’s misleading and gives people false impression of what is happening and makes no progress whatever toward the resolution.
Reader reply:
Good, thank you. I actually was just watching this video again today :) I think I am struggling to catch up and piece together what EUA immunity does and does not protect entities against. It is quite broad. I’ll read your article, though, and see what the slides say.
SL reply:
EUA is not really an “immunity.” It’s simply a category of product where by law NO pharmaceutical regulations are enforceable. It is a license for government contractors to ship poison as long as PREP window is open.
Reader reply:
I see. So no lawsuit alleging that Pfizer broke pharma regulations will work. Is the Paxton lawsuit getting around that, do you think? Also, is it only government officials who could bring a lawsuit about the PHE/EUA/PREP laws themselves? Do they sue the DOD and HHS to get that into the courts?
SL reply:
Correct. That’s why I pointed out several times that “Sue Pfizer now for manufacturing fraud/data fraud/other fraud” is a dead-end narrative. Probably purposefully designed to keep everyone running in place long enough while the masterminds put finishing touches on the global GULAG. The avid advocates of this narrative are IMO paid propagandists.
Paxton lawsuit goes after marketing claims IMO primarily to avoid federal pre-emption and try to get Pfizer into state court. It is a valid attempt, I am not criticizing that approach. However, I think it will run into the EUA issue anyway (that’s why he has a section in the lawsuit dedicated to the EUA which I did criticize).
The problem they are going to face is drug marketing is also regulated, and since Pfizer product is not an investigational pharmaceutical, those regs don’t apply. And somebody correctly pointed out that it wasn’t Pfizer who advertised 95% efficacy, the bulk of false advertising was done by the federal government agencies and media paid by the feds (not Pfizer ads). Although Pfizer did advertising, too.
A more creative approach IMO would have been to correctly state that EUA is a bullshit piece of “law” that legalizes shipping of poison, and go after Pfizer on bioterrorism charges under TX law. That’s if you really want to get Pfizer.
And in general that would be approach for a state AG or state legislators to get rid of this criminal nonsense. Fight the federal terrorism and re-assert state sovereignty. They are afraid to do that because they are all federal debt slaves. However, if several states made a coalition, the balance of power would be on the side of the states.
KW reply:
I think there’s at least one way for a private citizen to get the PHE/EUA/MCM bioterrorism program in front of a judge.
It’s 18 USC 2333, through which Congress created a private civil cause of action for victims of acts of international terrorism, to sue the terrorists and foreign terrorist organizations.
The main hurdle is that Congress put the power to maintain a list of designated foreign terrorist organizations subject to the law, in the hands of the Department of State/Secretary of State.
In this case, the Secretary of State is a member of the team of US government impersonators running the terrorism operation out of US government offices. So the Secretary of State has not yet put his co-conspirators and the PHEMCE, BARDA and other planning/operational committees on the list of designated foreign terrorist organizations.
The complaint would therefore need to identify the Secretary of State (and other Cabinet secretaries), in their personal capacities, as members of the terrorist organization that has been committing the terrorism crimes as defined in 18 USC 2331 and related laws, and include, as one of the claims, the Secretary of State’s failure to include the US government’s criminal infiltrators on the list of foreign terrorist organizations.
One of the demands in an 18 USC 2333 complaint, would be that the federal court order the Secretary of State to add himself, other Cabinet secretaries and other Senior Executive Service officials involved in the PHE/EUA/MCM crimes, and the committees through which they work, to the list of foreign terrorist organizations. Or that the federal judge add those individuals and committees to the FTO list him or herself.
I’ve done some preliminary drafts and outlines but stopped developing the drafts in late 2022, in the absence of interest from attorneys to whom I presented the proposal.
I’ve focused on building public understanding instead.
UPDATE Dec. 11, 2023
Reader 2 comment:
I’m not a lawyer, but what about 18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder? …”(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life;”
Wouldn’t that include the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Tribal Reservations, National Parks, in federal buildings (must have been a number of cases where the entire thing from injection to death occurred in federal prisons), on ships at sea, aircraft?
KW reply:
Murder is on the list of federal crimes that the impersonators in the federal government are doing.
As far as I know, there’s no private, civil cause of action available for survivors of murder victims.
The only way to prosecute murder is through a public prosecutor (district attorney or attorney general) because the crime is primarily considered a crime against society, and that’s what public prosecutors are there to prosecute.
But under PHE/PREP Act conditions, public prosecutors (so far) defer to the pseudo-laws blocking them from conducting criminal investigations and filing criminal charges.
The private, civil remedies related to murder are wrongful death, tort cases but those are blocked by PREP Act too.
There are some states (for example, Ohio Revised Code Section 2307.60) that have a civil cause of action for victims of crime.
Learning about that, is how I located 18 USC 2333, which created a civil cause of action for victims of the federal crimes of international terrorism.
Reader 2 reply:
“Public prosecutors (so far) defer to the pseudo-laws blocking them”
This is a dereliction of their duty and there must be some civil cause of action available to individuals to remedy that?
KW reply:
Organized, well-informed, articulate, sustained, ever-growing, creative public pressure applied at the county and state level, including credible electoral challenges to incumbent prosecutors.
They make cost-benefit analyses. So far, the political and other costs of truly seeing the deep corruption of constitutional rule of law, and confronting it through their actions, far outweigh the benefits. So they stay blind, silent and immobile.
Feb. 21, 2023 - Reconstitution starter pack. Supporting materials for people fighting on the litigation and legal reform battlefields. See No. 5, 7, and 10.
(No. 5) Educate and exert sociopolitical pressure on public prosecutors to file criminal charges. Current most-promising targets are county district attorneys and sheriffs, and state attorney generals/AGs who may be open to learning about how things have gone off the rails without their knowledge or consent, as preparation for doing their part to get things back on track…
