Discover more from Bailiwick News
There’s been some discussion about the term homo
borg-genesis borgiensis over at Sage Hana’s Substack about DailyExpose reporting: "U.S. D.O.D issued a contract for COVID-19 Research to a company in Ukraine, 3 months before COVID-19 was known to exist."
Attorney Todd Callender has been using the phrase for several months during interviews about the uncertain legal status of victims who have been injected with the bioweapons known as Covid-19 vaccines.
Homo borgiensis describes a new species of human potentially created by the mRNA injections, to the extent that reverse transcription alters the genomes of the victims and their gametes and offspring through biochemical processes.
UPDATE/CORRECTION: I checked in with Callender after posting, to request the source of the term. The correct spelling is homo borgiensis — and the term wasn’t created by NASA or DOD or any other government. It’s not, as far as I know, used in relevant government or NGO reports.
The term homo borgiensis was coined by author Elva Thompson, as described in her 2014 essay Requiem for Humanity. Thompson is an interesting character; use caution and skepticism when reading her work, and I’ll say no more about that.
Setting aside Thompson’s views on human history and the spiritual struggle between good and evil, homo borgiensis is, my view, an accurate and useful term to describe the man-machine borgs that governments and NGOs have demonstrably invested billions of dollars to culturally normalize, create, and control over the past few decades.
Governments and NGOs refer to these hybrid organisms as cyborgs, borgs or augmented humans.
One example is the May 2021 UK and German Defence Ministry report Human Augmentation – The Dawn of a New Paradigm: A strategic implications project, which is replete with examples of experiments and augmentation procedures already undertaken.
On the legal side, homo borgiensis relates to the June 13, 2013 US Supreme Court ruling in Association for Molecular Pathology et al v. Myriad Genetics Inc. [Fun fact: I wrote about Callender’s views on this case in my first post about Covid-law as it relates to the Predator-Parasite class war on humanity, posted on Jan. 31, 2022. It’s been a long, strange eight months since that day.]
In the Myriad case, SCOTUS affirmed that genetically-altered living organisms become the legal property of the holders of the gene-tech patents used to do the alteration. For the mRNA/DNA/nanotech injections, the patent holders are some combination of US government/Department of Defense and globalist pharmaceutical corporations.
Callender has raised this issue in many interviews, and also raised it in Robert v. Austin, a federal civil case filed in August 2021 (June 2022 Bailiwick report).
Two Army staff sergeants — Daniel Robert and Hollie Mulvihill — sued Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin challenging his August 24, 2021 vaccine mandate on several statutory and regulatory grounds and one Constitutional cause of action. In January 2022, before discovery or evidentiary review, the Colorado District Court denied the plaintiffs’ request for injunctions and granted the Department of Defense/Department of Justice motion to dismiss the case.
Callender’s team appealed the dismissal in 10th Circuit in Colorado, and oral argument is scheduled for Nov. 18, 2022.
In the March 2022 appellate brief, the uninjected plaintiffs argued at p. 19:
Plaintiffs pose no danger to their fellow service members, to their mission, to force readiness or to themselves and…are entitled to seek enforcement of applicable statutory protections against unwarranted and unwanted injection by completely novel biological agents.
These include genetic engineering agents, such as Messenger Ribonucleic Acid (“mRNA”) that likely results in the loss of vaccinated persons’ bodily sovereignty and autonomy by current law making genetically modified genomes, such as the inoculated service members, the chattel property of the patent holders in violation of the 13th Amendment.” Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 582-85 (2013)
March 2022 brief at p. 30:
“…at no point in the history of the military has a service member been required to become, at least in part, the intellectual property of a patent holder in clear violation of the 13th Amendment of the Constitution.”
March 2022 brief at p. 33
The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the new biotechnology of making alterations in the molecular structure of human deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA), and recognizes how powerful that can be. “Changes in the genetic sequence are called mutations. ... Some mutations are harmless, but others can cause disease or increase the risk of disease.” Molecular Pathology, 569 U.S. at 582.
Plaintiffs’ June 2022 reply brief at p. 7:
Conceptually, courts are for the first time faced here with the very real risk that Defendant Austin’s order at issue here is causation to transfer title of a human’s own sovereign body to global patent holders in violation of the 13th Amendment and as such his order must be enjoined and Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to immediately so enjoin Defendants or indicate as much with its ruling.
It is noteworthy that Defendants did not deny this argument…in Defendants’ response, which could thereby be deemed conceded and contrary to public policy.
In recent interviews, Callender has referred to a 2001 NASA Langley report on fifth generation warfare as the source of the homo borgiensis term.
These two reports are related to the issues:
January 2001 - Emerging Technologies: Recommendations for Counter-Terrorism, Dartmouth College Institute for Security Technology Studies, edited by Joseph Rosen, MD, and Charles Lucey, MD, JD, MPH
July 2001 - Future Strategic Issues/Future Warfare [Circa 2025]: The Bots, Borgs and Humans Welcome You to 2025 AD. NASA Langley Research Center, Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist
Those two reports are cited in a July 3, 2017 Christian Journal report: NASA Presentation from 2001 Predicts the Antichrist System, Technological Revolution, and the Artificial Takeover
On the other side of the issue, in 2011 Congress passed a law that limited the authority of the US patent office under 35 USC 101 — the statute interpreted by the Supreme Court in the 2013 Myriad case — by prohibiting issuing of patents “directed to or encompassing a human organism.” See Leahy Smith America Invents Act. PL 112-29, 125 Stat. 340, at Section 33.
So things are set-up for a direct conflict between the 2011 Congressional statute and the 2013 SCOTUS precedent, with the hope that the 10th Circuit court will, upon mature reflection, decide that the 13th Amendment and the 2011 law supersede the 2013 judicial precedent, and rule that human beings cannot be owned by governments and corporations, even if genetically altered by DOD-owned, DOD-patented bioweapons.
Since much of the Globo-Predator world domination plan has been predicated on getting that ownership path legalized and judicially-affirmed in each country, they will be deeply unhappy with any American judge who tries to block their path.
One of Sage’s readers commented:
Is their goal to enslave us, kill us, or cause permanent disability? And these sociopaths thought they could do this to the most heavily-armed society in the world?
Yes, all three.
They think they can do it because their weapons are psychological, chemical, biological and nanotechnology. Insertable into us, through food, water, air, and pharmaceuticals including injections. Such that our second amendment tools are moot. Especially if we ‘voluntarily’ take the meds/bioweapons.
There are many saving graces, but one is that a lot people felt uneasy even without knowing why early on, so the coverage rate of the bioweapons is lower than they wanted, and public suspicion and understanding of the whole project is growing with time, not decreasing.
Another Sage reader commented:
It sounds like it comes down to whether mRNA systems are cDNA systems. ie, do they compliment/change DNA or not. And since cDNA is established law, the bar seems pretty low for mRNA devices to be patented for their complimentary system, or not.
My reply, with minor revisions:
The scientific definitions of cDNA, mRNA and their effects on the human genome will be part of it.
But there are at least two other parts.
During litigation, judges and juries will have to rule on the implications and applicability of two opposing legal frameworks: the 2013 Supreme Court case, which favors Team Borg, and the 2011 federal statute prohibiting granting patents on human organisms, which favors Team Human.
And within human society — the interplay of many social, political and spiritual forces on governments at the local, state and federal level — there is and will continue to be a struggle between our side, the side pushing for human beings to live and die under laws aligned with divine and natural law, and the spiritually-damned other side, which has been and will continue to push for borgs to live and die under laws aligned with Luciferian hubris and pride.
Do not comply with Team Borg.