How can HHS, DOD and DHS be ‘foreign terrorist organizations?’
How can HHS, DOD and DHS be ‘foreign terrorist organizations?’
Through the treasonous (18 USC 2381) primary allegiance of their secretaries, and other senior executives, to the World Health Organization and its conspiring globalist institutions.
Yesterday’s legal strategy discussion continued with two more reader comments, added to yesterday’s post as two updates and reposted here.
Reader follow-up question 1:
But doesn't 18 USC 2333 apply only to "an injury arising from an act of international terrorism committed, planned, or authorized by an organization that had been designated as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act"?
My reply:
Yes, and that’s why I also advocate for including Secretary of State, Secretary of Treasury and Attorney General as named defendants when the right case comes along.
Those individuals should be charged on a count of breach of duty and related civil counts, for their failure to properly designate the DOD, HHS and Department of Homeland Security as foreign terrorist organizations.
Legal horror movie pitch: The World According to Darp
[Attorney Warner] Mendenhall commented:
Liability seems to be limited to those "designated as a foreign terrorist organization."
My reply, revised/expanded:
One possibility re: "foreign terrorist organization" — Include among named US government defendants the Secretary of State, Treasury Secretary and Attorney General, for breach of duty to properly designate US government/HHS/DOD as a foreign terrorist organization.
When combined with the NIH/NIAID/US-AID/EcoHealth/ PREDICT/ DARPA/Joseph Murphy reports and an affidavit from Francis A. Boyle, the following piece of evidence from the Federal Register will be useful in making that argument:
2021/11/17 - “HHS Interim Final Rule - Possession, Use, and Transfer of Select Agents and Toxins — Addition of SARS–CoV/SARS–CoV–2 Chimeric Viruses Resulting From Any Deliberate Manipulation of SARS–CoV–2 To Incorporate Nucleic Acids Coding for SARS–CoV Virulence Factors to the HHS List of Select Agents and Toxins.” 86 Federal Register 64075.
Translation: On Nov. 17, 2021, US Government officials within HHS added chimeric, lab-weaponized SARS-CoV-2 to the list of agents that “have the potential to pose a severe threat to public health and safety” under 42 CFR 73.3.
This act can and should be argued to a federal judge as part of the pre-crime and post-crime coverup campaign, which goes to constructive knowledge, criminal intent, malice, and reckless disregard for human life.
The regulatory maneuver was an attempt to block accountability by reclassifying illegal bioweapons use as legally indistinguishable from pandemics, to block federal and international civil and criminal cases brought under the theory that SARS-CoV-2 and the lethal injections are bioweapons whose development, release, manufacture and use are prohibited crimes and not a communicable disease outbreak followed by a governmental pandemic response program.
If classified as a bioweapon, the Public Health Emergency of International Concern (international) and public health emergency (federal) legal frameworks would be nullified, instead bringing to bear federal and international laws prohibiting chemical and biological weapons.
In other words, Brook Jackson’s case — if the US Government is joined as a defendant and a 18 USC 2333 claim is added — can be used to force the US Government to take one of two positions in response to overwhelming evidence that identifiable US Government officials have orchestrated and committed mass murder using bioweapons developed by the US Government:
1. Mass murder using bioweapons is the official policy of the US Government, and the people who planned it and are carrying it out were and remain fully authorized to do so.
2. Mass murder using bioweapons is prohibited under US and international law, and the people implementing the programs are rogue elements who are not authorized by the US Government, and therefore can and should be removed from power, charged, tried, convicted and punished.
Reader follow-up question 2:
Pretty ingenious! The only thing I don't understand is designating "the DOD, HHS and Department of Homeland Security as foreign terrorist organizations." How can they be "foreign" if they are parts of our government? Or, in other words, is there more to the definition/meaning of "foreign" than meets the eye?
My reply:
Infiltration of US government by WHO-WEF-UN-BIS-aligned individuals, engaged in treason.
Azar, Becerra, and other cabinet secretaries, plus Congress and US presidents and many federal judges, are demonstrably doing the bidding of the World Health Organization, under the terms of the 2005 International Health Regulations, including by suspending US sovereignty, US Constitution, and all federal laws that conflict with the world governance structures WHO/WEF/UN/BIS are working to impose on every country’s population.
The overthrow by internal, foreign enemies took place on Jan. 27, 2020 and has been maintained since.
Attorney Todd Callender’s Jan. 30, 2022 podcast interview about the WHO International Health Regulations of 2005 sent me into the legal research maze I’ve explored in the nine months since.
Three days later, on Feb. 2, I posted about changes to ‘public health emergency’ regulations that took effect Jan. 19, 2017, and public concerns raised at the time about potential overthrow of national sovereignty and constitutions, as reported by HHS in the Federal Register Notice of Final Rule. 82 Federal Register 6890.
I’m reposting that February post, because Bailiwick’s readership on Feb. 2 was 92 people. 5,350 new readers have signed up since then.
I’m working on writing up my notes from Attorney Todd Callender’s interview by Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet, and doing some research to correct timeline errors and review cited documents. [Report published Feb. 26 as Legal Walls of the Covid-19 Kill Box.]
Among other key events, Callender pointed to the 2005 adoption, through the World Health Organization, of a set of International Health Regulations.
The WHO description accompanying publication of the second edition (emphasis added):
“In response to the exponential increase in international travel and trade, and emergence and reemergence of international disease threats and other health risks, 196 countries across the globe have agreed to implement the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR). This binding instrument of international law entered into force on 15 June 2007.
The stated purpose and scope of the IHR are "to prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risks, and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade."
Because the IHR are not limited to specific diseases, but are applicable to health risks, irrespective of their origin or source, they will follow the evolution of diseases and the factors affecting their emergence and transmission.
The IHR also require States to strengthen core surveillance and response capacities at the primary, intermediate and national level, as well as at designated international ports, airports and ground crossings. They further introduce a series of health documents, including ship sanitation certificates and an international certificate of vaccination or prophylaxis for travelers...
The 2005 International Health Regulations required each signatory nation-state to adopt implementing legislation, which the United States government did, through [among many other acts] revisions to 42 CFR Parts 70 and 71, governing interstate and foreign quarantine during any "public health emergency of international concern" as declared by the director of the Centers for Disease Control US-HHS Secretary and the director of the World Health Organization.
The most recent major, highly-relevant revisions of 42 CFR Parts 70 and 71 occurred through a "final rulemaking" by the Department of Health and Human Services, published in the Federal Register on Jan. 19, 2017 (82 Federal Register 6890) and effective Feb. 17, 2017.
The revisions were put in place just as Donald Trump was taking office as US President after a surprising electoral win.
Excerpts from 82 Federal Register 6890:
[p. 81] Public health emergency as used in this part means:
(1) Any communicable disease event as determined by the Director with either documented or significant potential for regional, national, or international communicable disease spread or that is highly likely to cause death or serious illness if not properly controlled; or
(2) Any communicable disease event described in a declaration by the Secretary pursuant to 319(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d (a)); or
(3) Any communicable disease event the occurrence of which is notified to the World Health Organization, in accordance with Articles 6 and 7 of the International Health Regulations, as one that may constitute a Public Health Emergency of International Concern; or
(4) Any communicable disease event the occurrence of which is determined by the Director-General of the World Health Organization, in accordance with Article 12 of the International Health Regulations, to constitute a Public Health Emergency of International Concern; or
(5) Any communicable disease event for which the Director-General of the World Health Organization, in accordance with Articles 15 or 16 of the International Health Regulations, has issued temporary or standing recommendations for purposes of preventing or promptly detecting the occurrence or reoccurrence of the communicable disease.
Health and Human Services/CDC officials responded to public comments expressing concern.
[pp. 16-17] One commenter also requested clarification concerning whether the World Health Organization’s (WHO) declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) could continue to serve as the basis for a ‘‘public health emergency’’ if the President or HHS Secretary disagreed with the declaration of a PHEIC on legal, epidemiologic, or policy grounds.
In response, HHS/CDC notes that the scenario proposed by the commenter is unlikely, but that CDC remains a component of HHS, subject to the authority and supervision of the HHS Secretary and President of the United States.
HHS/CDC also received a comment objecting to referencing the WHO’s declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) in the definition of ‘‘public health emergency’’ because this ostensibly relinquishes U.S. sovereignty.
HHS/CDC disagrees. By including references to a PHEIC, HHS/CDC is not constraining its actions or makings its actions subject to the dictates of the WHO. Rather, the declaration or notification of a PHEIC is only one way for HHS/CDC to define when the precommunicable stage of a quarantinable communicable disease may be likely to cause a public health emergency if transmitted to other individuals.
While HHS/CDC will give consideration to the WHO’s declaration of a PHEIC or the circumstances under which a PHEIC may be notified to the WHO, HHS/CDC will continue to make its own independent decisions regarding when a quarantinable communicable disease may be likely to cause a public health emergency if transmitted to other individuals. Thus, HHS/CDC disagrees that referencing the WHO determination of a PHEIC results in any relinquishment of U.S. sovereignty.
The International Health Regulations are an international legal instrument that sets out the roles of WHO and State parties in identifying, responding to, and sharing information about public health emergencies of international concern. HHS/CDC believes that it would be unlikely for the United States to formally object to the WHO’s declaration of a PHEIC, but that CDC remains a component of HHS, subject to the authority and supervision of the HHS Secretary and President of the United States.
Also regarding the definition of ‘‘public health emergency,’’ one public health association expressed concern that any disease considered to be a public health emergency may qualify it as quarantinable. Another commenter noted that some PHEICs ‘‘most certainly do not qualify as public health emergencies’’ under the proposed definition. HHS/CDC appreciates the opportunity to clarify. Only those communicable diseases listed by Executive Order of the President may qualify as quarantinable communicable diseases. For example, Zika virus infection, which although the current epidemic was declared a PHEIC by WHO, is not a quarantinable communicable disease. The definition of Public health emergency is finalized as proposed."
As we all now know, the HHS/CDC blandishments — about scenarios in which the United States government would subordinate its national sovereignty to the World Health Organization being “unlikely” — were lies, told with full knowledge of their falsehood by the HHS/CDC liars.
Brilliant. I think the logic is sound. Our federal government has long since been acting like an occupying force, exacerbated exponential with covid.
Katherine, would it be worthwhile to begin sending this information to our States' Attorneys General? If so, how would we break it down into incremental "chunks" that we could send piecemeal that build and support your case for this?