Discover more from Bailiwick News
European Commission regulations implementing the global pharma-military kill box
Also brief response to Robert Barnes’ recent post.
Feb. 13, 2023 - Worldwide, US Military-Led Medical Martial Law Operation to Kill Off Humans, Exposed. ZeeeMedia.com. Maria Zeee, Katherine Watt (60 min)
In the Maria Zeee interview, I said that recently, legal researchers in Europe had located some of the mechanisms through which the global bioterrorism/medical martial law program functions to surveil, capture, control and kill people in European countries.
Some of the mechanisms can be found in corporate contracts signed between European governments and pharma-bioweapons manufacturers.
See, for example, Sasha Latypova’s reporting about the contents of emails between key European war criminals.
Feb. 6, 2023 Letters from the Underworld:
…Ursula von der Leyen - EU Commissioner, whose achievements include negotiating incredible predatory Pfizer supply contracts on behalf of all EU Member States by text messages with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla. In these contracts the EU countries had to put up state assets as collateral, waive all quality control, importation and consumer protection laws and give up national sovereignty - i.e., not allowed to change legislation with respect to vaccine liability by their own parliaments? The predatory contracts that were completely redacted to protect so-called “Pfizer commercial interests”…
There are a bunch of acronyms used, the most relevant are “EC” = European Commission, “MS” = Member States, “EP”=European Parliament.
The key sentence is that Ursula is “prepared to call relevant health ministers personally to avoid the use of Article 5 (2).”
What is this about? Article 5 (2) refers to “Article 5 (2) of Directive 2001/83” - Emergency use authorization in a European Member State, given by each of the Member States separately in their own countries. [“Article 5 (2). Member States may temporarily authorise the distribution of an unauthorised medicinal product in response to the suspected or confirmed spread of pathogenic agents, toxins, chemical agents or nuclear radiation any of which could cause harm.]
CMA is a Conditional Market Authorization which is issued by the European Medicines Agency for all EU members simultaneously…
The problem is that Ursula never meant to fulfill these promises, and at any rate, it is not possible to produce the mRNA “vaccines” to the safety, efficacy and manufacturing quality required of pharmaceuticals.
What Ursula really needed from this process was to tie all the European Member States together in a pact by promising a “robust” CMA, so that they could not have an independent authority over the shots distributed in their countries…
Article 5 path would have meant each Member State could authorize the product, and would then have the power to revoke the authorization if any problems detected.
Article 5 also provides a liability waiver to the manufacturer, however makes it impossible to mandate the product.
With the CMA route none of the member states could exercise the independent decision making, and so she would be able to then force them all into the same, insane and almost completely redacted Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca contracts, which waived all liability anyway, and further prohibited the countries to change their own laws in regard to the liability…”
Other mechanisms are embedded in European Commission regulations about “countermeasures” authorizations and financing mechanisms, a paper trail located recently by a legal researcher who works in one of the EU member-states.
Below is a chronological reorganization and expansion of the raw email content Sasha posted last week:
Feb. 8, 2023 - Note for Legal Cases in Europe: on EU Provisions for Medical Countermeasures. Legal structures were created in the European Union echoing the US structures as evidence of the global pre-planned "plandemic" event.
Bailiwick readers in Europe may find it useful to start by downloading and carefully reading the documents below (the English versions of which I’ve uploaded to my Bailiwick Wordpress backup site), and then explore Eur-Lex, the European Union's database of legal documents, which has translations of the documents into member-state languages.
Knowing the names, numbers and contents of the regulations will help in your efforts to educate and mobilize social and political momentum for your government officials to pass blocking legislation at the nation-state level; repeal the kill box laws at the EU level; and/or withdraw your country from the European Union.
The EU provisions correspond with the US provisions related to “medical countermeasures” and establishment of home- and business-based concentration camps (prohibition of free human association, commerce and movement within countries and across borders) in case of “natural or man-made disaster”
To recap, the American biomedical police state — controlled by the World Health Organization operating as the military branch of the Bank for International Settlements — came into force through statutes passed by the US Congress; executive orders issued by US Presidents; administrative/Cabinet agency regulations published in the Federal Register; and state and local versions of same. See footnoted executive summary of American Domestic Bioterrorism Program.
The European biomedical police state came into force through analogous regulations passed by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Prior to locating these European Commission regulations, many attorneys in the EU member states thought that bioweapons regulation (falsely identified by government officials as 'vaccine'-regulation) was covered by provisions of EU law governing Conditional Marketing Authorization (CMA).
Turns out, that is not the case.
The backbone of the EU biomedical police state is comprised of provisions outlined below.
These are the rules the BIS/WHO puppets in the European Union have passed, to support their joint program to poison you and your kids behind the mask of public health, and force you to finance the mass murder program as well.
1998/09/24 - Council Decision No. 2119/98/EC - Setting up a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the Community.
The objective of this Decision is to set up a network at European Community level to promote cooperation and coordination between the Member States, with the assistance of the European Commission, with a view to improving the prevention and control, in the Eruopean Community, of the categories of communicable diseases specified in the Annex.
This network shall be used for:
the epidemiological surveillance of these diseases, and
an early warning and response system for the prevention and control of these diseases.
As regards epidemiological surveillance, the network shall be established by bringing into permanent communication with one another, through all appropriate technical means, the European Commission and those structures and/or authorities which, at the level of each Member State and under the responsibility of that Member State, are competent at national level and are charged with collecting information relating to the epidemiological surveillance of communicable diseases, and by establishing procedures for the dissemination of the relevant surveillance data at Community level.
As regards the early warning and response system, this network shall be formed by bringing into permanent communication with one another, through appropriate means, the Commission and the competent public health authorities in each Member State responsible for deter- mining the measures which may be required to protect public health.
The European Commission shall provide for the coordination of the network in collaboration with the Member States…
Diseases preventable by vaccination
Water-borne diseases and diseases of environmental origin
Other diseases transmissible by non-conventional agents (including Creutzfeldt-Jakob’s disease)
Diseases covered by the international health regulations (yellow fever, cholera and plague)
Other diseases (rabies, typhus, viral haemorrhagic fevers, malaria and any other as yet unclassified serious epidemic disease, etc.)
Title II. Scope
This Directive shall apply to medicinal products for human use intended to be placed on the market in Member States and either prepared industrially or manufactured by a method involving an industrial process.
2004/04/21 - Regulation (EC) No. 851/2004 - Establishing a European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.
Article 1. Scope
This Regulation establishes an independent European agency for disease prevention and control, its mission, tasks and organisation.
Additional provisions cover Mission, Obligations of the Member States, Operation of dedicated surveillance networks and networking activities, Operation of early warning and response system, Identification of emerging health threats, Communications, Management, Financial Provisions, Implementation of the Centre's budget, Legal personality and privileges, and more.
2013/10/22 - Council Decision No. 1082/2013 - On serious cross-border threats to health and repealing Decision No 2119/98/EC.
Article 1. Subject matter
This Decision lays down rules on epidemiological surveillance, monitoring, early warning of, and combating serious cross-border threats to health, including preparedness and response planning related to those activities, in order to coordinate and complement national policies...
Article. 5. Joint procurement of medical countermeasures
1. The institutions of the Union and any Member States which so desire may engage in a joint procurement procedure conducted pursuant to …the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union ... with a view to the advance purchase of medical countermeasures for serious cross-border threats to health.
2. The joint procurement procedure referred to in paragraph 1 shall comply with the following conditions:
(a) participation in the joint procurement procedure is open to all Member States until the launch of the procedure;
(b) the rights and obligations of Member States not participating in the joint procurement are respected, in particular those relating to the protection and improvement of human health;
(c) the joint procurement does not affect the internal market, does not constitute discrimination or a restriction of trade or does not cause distortion of competition;
(d) the joint procurement does not have any direct financial impact on the budget of Member States not participating in the joint procurement…
Annex. Criteria for selection of communicable diseases and related special health issues to be covered by epidemiological surveillance within the network
Communicable diseases and related special health issues that cause, or have the potential to cause, significant morbidity or mortality, or both, across the Union, especially where the prevention of those diseases requires an approach to coordination at Union level.
Communicable diseases and related special health issues where the exchange of information may provide early warning of threats to public health.
Rare and serious communicable related diseases and special health issues which would not be recognised at national level and where the pooling of data would allow hypothesis generation from a wider knowledge base.
Communicable diseases and related special health issues for which effective preventive measures are available with a protective health gain.
Communicable diseases and related special health issues for which a comparison by Member States would contribute to the evaluation of national and Union programmes.
2016/03/15 - Regulation (EU) 2016/369 - On the provision of emergency support within the Union
Article. 1. Subject matter and scope
This Regulation lays down the framework within which Union emergency support may be awarded through specific measures appropriate to the economic situation in the event of an ongoing or potential natural or man-made disaster...
Article. 2. Activation of the emergency support
…The decision about the activation of the emergency support under this Regulation in case of an ongoing or potential disaster shall be taken by the Council on the basis of a proposal by the Commission, specifying where appropriate the duration of the activation.
2020/04/14 - Regulation (EU) 2020/521 - Activating the emergency support under Regulation (EU) 2016/369, and amending its provisions taking into account the COVID‐19 outbreak
EU government action, retroactive to Feb. 1, 2020 to apply the "emergency support" regulation to the Covid-19 crises.
Whereas, No. 19:
Member States have declared, as parties to the Joint Procurement Agreement referred to in Article 5 of Decision No 1082/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, their agreement to the inclusion of ongoing joint procurement procedures under that Article in the fast-track procurement procedure established by this Regulation, under the conditions set out therein. The type of medical countermeasures to be procured and the distribution of the countermeasures to Member States should follow any agreement reached under those ongoing procedures.
Emergency support under Regulation (EU) 2016/369 is hereby activated to finance expenditure necessary to address the COVID‐19 pandemic for the period 1 February 2020 to 31 January 2022.
Annex of Regulation 2016/369/EU, Eligible actions
The following actions may be financed in case of pandemics with large-scale effect:
(a) temporary reinforcement of the medical workforce, exchange of medical professionals, hosting foreign patients or other type of mutual support;
(b) deployment of temporary healthcare facilities and temporary extension of existing healthcare facilities to relieve pressure on existing structures and increase overall healthcare capacity;
(c) activities to support the administration of large-scale application of medical tests and prepare the necessary scientific testing strategies and protocols;
(d) setting up temporary quarantine facilities and other appropriate measures at the Union borders;
(e) development, production or purchase and distribution of medical products;
(f) increases and conversions of production capacities for medical products as referred to in point (e) to address supply shortages;
(g) maintenance of the stock of medical products as referred to in point (e) and their disposal;
(h) actions to support the necessary steps to obtain approval for the use of the medical products as referred to in point (e) if required;
(i) actions to develop appropriate methods to track the development of the pandemic and the results of measures implemented to address it;
(j) organisation of ad-hoc clinical trials of potential therapies or diagnostics according to trial standards agreed at Union level;
(k) scientific validation of medical products, including potential new testing methods.
The above list is not exhaustive."
European legal researcher's preliminary analysis of the combined effects of these directives and regulations, corroborating the global martial law/war machine classification of the Covid-19 crises and the bioweapons classification of the products marketed as ‘Covid-19 vaccines.’
…(h) opens the door to any actions they assume necessary in order to achieve their goal of obtaining approval for the use of medical products. Thus, the regulators and suppliers are free to abstain from any provisions applicable to medicinal products, drugs and medical devices.
(j) opens the door to “ad-hoc” clinical trials, meaning they need not conform to certified Good Clinical Practice, but only unspecified “trial standards agreed at Union level.”
This also shows the clear fraud in the European Union they committed against all citizens, giving the impression that they had evaluated the injections according to existing standards for the evaluation of medicinal products at least on the basis of conditional marketing authorisations, whereas behind the scenes they were free to make whatever they desired.
The question “who” had the competence for “approval for the use of the medical products as referred to in point (e) if required;” may be answered with “the EU Commission,” which would not even require a change in competence as the EU Commission has been competent for approval of medicinal products on a central level since 1995 with the new scheme of marketing authorizations in the EU…
…All decisions have been signed by Margaritis Schinas, Vice President of the Commission and responsible for security in EU, including coordinating the European Commission’s work on developing a European Security Union; ensuring coherence of the external and internal dimensions of security; coordinating the Commission’s work to strengthen prevention, detection and response measures to hybrid threats.
Schinas authorized the ‘vaccines’ but not the therapeutics, so obviously there is a difference in classification, behind the scenes, between those kinds of products.
Normal medicinal products are always authorized by the EU Commission, Directorate General for Health and signed by a representative of the Director General or the Director General herself.
In Germany they installed a new Department 6 “Health Protection, Health Safety, Sustainability” in the second half of 2019. On March 1, 2020, a military general became head of this department with two sub-departments with five specialist departments each, including departments on national and international crisis management. He was also head of the “Corona Pandemic Crisis Management Team” and led the Health Ministry at the end of 2021.
Effective December 2022, the European Parliament and Council of the European Union repealed and replaced Decision No. 1082/2013/EU with Regulation No. 2022/2371/EU, expanding and tightening the EU-level control-and-kill legal framework in support of the One World Health model sought by the BIS and its military branch: the World Health Organization.
2022/11/23 - Regulation (EU) 2022/2371 - On serious cross-border threats to health and repealing Decision No 1082/2013/EU
A network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases was set up by Decision No 2119/98/EC;...its scope was extended by Decision No 1082/2013/EU ... to strengthen and provide for a more coordinated and wider approach to health security at Union level. The implementation of that legislation confirmed that coordinated Union action on monitoring, early warning of and combatting those threats adds value to the protection and improvement of human health.
In light of the lessons learnt during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and in order to facilitate adequate Union-wide preparedness for and response to all cross-border threats to health, the legal framework for epidemiological surveillance, monitoring, early warning of, and combatting serious cross-border threats to health, including zoonotic-related threats, as provided for in Decision No 1082/2013/EU, needs to be broadened with regard to additional reporting requirements and analysis regarding health systems indicators, and with regard to cooperation between Member States and Union agencies and bodies, particularly the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and international organisations, in particular the World Health Organization (WHO)...
Article 1. Subject matter
1. In order to address serious cross-border threats to health and the consequences thereof, this Regulation lays down rules on:
(a) the Health Security Committee (HSC);
(b) prevention, preparedness and response planning, including;
(i) preparedness plans at Union and national levels; and
(ii) reporting and assessing preparedness at national level;
(c) joint procurement of medical countermeasures;
(d) emergency research and innovation;
(e) epidemiological surveillance and monitoring;
(f) the network for epidemiological surveillance;
(g) the Early Warning and Response System (EWRS);
(h) risk assessment;
(i) coordination of response; and
(j) recognition of a public health emergency at Union level.
2. This Regulation establishes:
(a) a network of EU reference laboratories for public health;
(b) a network for substances of human origin; and
(c) an advisory committee for the occurrence and recognition of a public health emergency at Union level.
3. In line with the One Health and Health in All Policies approaches, the implementation of this Regulation shall be supported by funding from relevant Union programmes and instruments.
Article 2. Scope
1. This Regulation shall apply to public health measures in relation to the following categories of serious cross-border threats to health:
(a) threats of biological origin, consisting of:
(i) communicable diseases, including those of zoonotic origin;
(ii) antimicrobial resistance and healthcare-associated infections related to communicable diseases (‘related special health issues’);
(iii) biotoxins or other harmful biological agents not related to communicable diseases;
(b) threats of chemical origin;
(c) threats of environmental origin, including those due to the climate;
(d) threats of unknown origin; and
(e) events which may constitute public health emergencies of international concern under the International Health Regulations (IHR) (‘public health emergencies of international concern’), provided that they fall under one of the categories of threats set out in points (a) to (d).
Criteria for selection of communicable diseases and related special health issues to be covered by epidemiological surveillance within the network for epidemiological surveillance
Union surveillance shall provide information for public health action at Union level. More specifically, one of the following criteria shall be met:
significant morbidity, significant mortality or emerging disease (increasing five-year trend) in a sizeable percentage of Member States;
potential to cause cross-border outbreaks;
high-threat pathogen (transmissibility and severity);
specifically targeted national or Union public health programmes in place that require monitoring and evaluation;
Union surveillance adds public health value to national surveillance systems other than what is implied in criteria 1 to 4.
Brief response to Robert Barnes’ recent post
Sage Hana has a repost of content Barnes published through his Locals page.
I responded briefly on my Gab feed, reposted below. I don’t plan to address how my legal analysis diverges from Barnes’ legal analysis further, because I’m focused on developing litigation and social/political pressure strategies that I think have better odds of successfully stopping the ongoing genocide; legislatively repealing or judicially nullifying the enabling laws; and bringing the war criminals to justice.
Barnes’ approach is not aimed at those goals, so I’m not willing to spend a lot of time addressing it.
In my view, any legal strategy (civil, criminal or administrative) that sidesteps or covers up the fact that the people of the world are currently enduring, and mounting resistance to, intentional mass murder and mass poisoning, is a bad strategy.
In fact, the people of the world are enduring a criminal military campaign, conducted through production and use of bioweapons, deployed by people claiming to represent the US Government and virtually all other national governments.
The war criminals are fraudulently referring to deadly bioweapons as regulated pharmaceutical products (‘vaccines’) and fraudulently describing the unlawful injection of these toxic compounds into human beings as components of a public health campaign.
Accepting and endorsing the war criminals’ false main premises, as being true, is counterproductive.
Response to Robert Barnes’ Locals post:
I looked at it quickly. I think he’s misrepresenting the evidence and argument, but he needs to do that to try to discredit us and shore up his own strategy, so I get why he’s doing it.
Beyond that, I don’t know why (i.e. can only speculate) he 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, thus increasing the grounds for dismissal.
I think Barnes is going to drive her case right into dismissal for her by failing to see and present the evidence in the way that Sasha and I see it and present it.
There will be other cases though, in which Barnes is not involved, and eventually a plaintiff (whistleblower or not) or group of plaintiffs will present some of those cases properly, on the evidence base Brook, Sasha and I have exposed, as a civil claim based on the criminal actions of the defendants, or as a state, federal or international war crimes/terrorism/genocide/bioweapons/chemical weapons criminal prosecution.
In my view, Barnes is just missing a good opportunity for Brook’s original case to be among the cases that start to open those doors.
Feb. 18, 2023 - Responding to Criticism Regarding My Statements on Pfizer's DOD Contract. Sasha Latypova writing at Substack.