Discover more from Bailiwick News
Jackson v. Pfizer/DOD scheduled for March 1 oral argument on Motion to Dismiss
Plus a script for an evidence-supported exchange between Judge Truncale and DOJ/Pfizer/DOD/HHS attorneys.
Last week, Judge Michael Truncale issued an order directing the parties to appear March 1, 2023 at a hearing on the motions to dismiss Brook Jackson’s whistleblower case, filed by defendants Pfizer, Ventavia and ICON.
The hearing will be held at Judge Truncale’s Beaumont, Texas courtroom.
Pfizer also recently filed another memo in support of dismissal.
Feb. 17, 2023 - Order Setting Oral Hearing for March 1, 2023
I rarely write fiction.
When I do, it’s to convey true information through fictional scenarios.
Oct. 21, 2022 - Legal horror movie pitch: The World According to Darp. 'Shouting fire in a crowded theater' meets 'When did you stop beating your wife?' Starring US Government as Darpon Fink, serial-killer/arsonist.
Below is an account of how the exchange between Judge Truncale and the DOJ attorneys representing Pfizer and the Department of Defense could unfold, if Judge Truncale is well-briefed, has a deep faith in God, and has amply developed the cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance over the course of his life, and if counsel for the defendants respond to the questions truthfully.
Side note: Sage Hana wrote an excellent post on the same themes yesterday.
Feb. 19, 2023 - Murdering the World is Hard
Early witnesses such as Robert and Theodore Strecker (1986) saw the campaign unfolding decades ago, raised alarms and were sidelined by the CIA’s ‘conspiracy theory’ operation, or killed to warn others to steer clear.
As the real-time evidence mounts, many more witnesses are now converging on the same analyses.
Again, the below account is NOT a transcript of a hearing that has occurred.
It’s a fictional script for an exchange that could occur on March 1, 2023, if Judge Truncale chooses to ask these questions, and if the DOJ attorneys choose to respond truthfully on behalf of their clients: non-State actors who are impersonating US Government officials within DOD, HHS and nationalized bioweapons manufacturing companies like Pfizer, to deploy chemical and biological weapons and commit other war crimes — in violation of international and federal laws criminalizing same — through the subterfuge of the “public health emergency” program.
Counsel, as a preliminary matter, when I ask a question directed at eliciting information about the knowledge and acts of “your clients,” I am referring to the individuals who currently work, or worked at the relevant times, within the public and private organizations implicated in this False Claims Act case.
My understanding of the composition of that group, at this time, includes corporate executives and lead scientists and medical professionals at Pfizer, Ventavia and ICON, operating as contractors to the US Government. In many ways, it appears that these companies have been nationalized through the Defense Production Act and other mechanisms such as executive orders.
In addition to these executives and lead scientists, your clients also include senior executive service officials working within the US Government at the Department of Defense, Department of Health and Human Services, and other federal cabinet agencies, and especially within the Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes for Health, and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Do you understand what I mean when I say “your clients?”
Yes, Your Honor.
Now, I plan to ask a series of questions, almost all of which can be answered with a simple Yes, or No. I would like you to answer these questions with “Yes,” or “No,” and I’ll remind you that you are under oath to respond truthfully. Toward the end of my questioning, you will have an opportunity to give more open-ended responses.
Do you understand these instructions?
Okay, let’s get started.
Did your clients knowingly lie to the public about the threat posed by the pathogen class known as SARS-CoV-2? By which I mean, did your clients intentionally and maliciously exaggerate the threat posed to the general public by these pathogens?
Did your clients knowingly lie about the utility of masks, social distancing, and lockdowns — by which I mean school and business closures, occupancy limitations and the like — for controlling the spread of the pathogens, suggesting that these measures had been demonstrated to be effective for communicable disease control, when in fact, they are not effective?
Did your clients knowingly lie about the accuracy and diagnostic utility of the medical devices known as PCR tests, for determining infection and transmission potential in individual patients, and for tracking the spread of disease through databases such as the Johns Hopkins dashboard?
Did your clients knowingly lie about the safety and efficacy of repurposed drugs — drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin — and nutritional supplements such as Vitamin D, Vitamin C and Zinc, falsely characterizing them as unsafe and ineffective for the prevention and treatment of the symptoms related to exposure to SARS-CoV-2 pathogens?
Moving on to Operation Warp Speed. Did your clients knowingly lie when they told the public that the products — later labeled as “Covid-19 vaccines” — were being developed through a clinical trial process substantively identical to the standard FDA-regulated clinical trial procedures for new drugs, vaccines and biologics?
I understand that the public was informed that these procedures were being sped up, or accelerated; that was one possible meaning of the "warp speed" project title.
What I'm asking is whether your clients knowingly lied about the character, nature or quality of the product development process, setting aside the pace.
Did your clients know, at all the times when they stood at podiums and made contrary statements to the public at press conferences and the like — that the Emergency Use Authorization program is, by legal definition, not a clinical-trial based product development process?
In other words, did your clients know that all uses of EUA products are specifically exempted from regulations requiring things including valid evidence of safety and efficacy, informed consent, and Institutional Review Boards?
Did your clients knowingly lie when they characterized the FDA regulatory actions as government oversight of new product development?
I'm talking here about advisory committee meetings, scientific reviews, and the actions presented to the public as "authorization" and "approval." For example, the EUA "authorization" of Pfizer's product on Dec. 11, 2020, and the Biologics License Application (BLA) "approval" of the Comirnaty product on Aug. 23, 2021.
Did your clients knowingly lie when they characterized the role of the Department of Defense as "logistics" only?
To clarify: Did your clients know that the products for which the US Government contracted with Pfizer, were in fact military bioweapons intended to harm and kill recipients, produced under military contracts, and not medicinal products intended to prevent and treat disease, and did they intentionally and maliciously withhold that information from the public?
And did your clients also knowingly lie when they publicly characterized the manufacturing processes used to produce these bioweapons as subject to current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) and other regulations governing manufacturing, testing and distribution of mass-produced medicinal products for consumer safety protection?
Because, in fact — and your clients knew this but didn't tell the public — the products were designed to be harmful and lethal, not safe?
Thank you for your candor.
We're now getting to the questions I said would be more open-ended. Why did your clients knowingly lie to the public about these things?
Your Honor, my clients are involved — through their use of global financial networks — with the Bank for International Settlements. I don't know if you're familiar with something called the Deagel Forecast.
Just to summarize it briefly, the international bankers several years ago set up benchmarks for population reduction for each country in the world, to reduce the financial pressure on entitlement programs like pensions, Social Security, Medicare and so forth. They don’t want money to be used willy-nilly by ordinary people to facilitate ordinary exchanges of goods and services. They want to minutely control all of those transactions, resources and people.
The planning started to pick up speed just after World War II, and then in the mid-1970s, Kissinger and Nixon laid out the US Government’s intent to participate, through national security reports and memos.
The Deagel report set out the numerical values (population targets, percents-to-cull) and deadlines for each country's government to hit those benchmarks.
The benchmarks are mostly supposed to be hit by 2025. They vary in percentages. Low-income countries, for example, whose people don't use very many resources per capita, and who already have low life expectancies, high infant mortality rates, high disease burdens — their benchmarks are set relatively low. Burundi's target for population reduction from 2017 to 2025 is at about 8.3%. Some countries are projected to stay roughly the same, others are projected to grow a little bit.
The population cull benchmarks for high-income, developed countries are much higher, because the per capita resource claims in those countries are much higher. The UK tops the list, projected to drop by 77% by 2025. United States comes in at number 3, projected to drop by 68.5%.
You said the US program got going under Nixon and Kissinger in the seventies?
Yes. The plan at first was to just increase the toxic load on the population gradually, through things like the childhood vaccine schedule, which is actually a childhood bioweapon schedule; chemical spraying and additives in food supplies; and damage to soil quality. All to artificially increase metabolic disease and cancer rates and reduce fertility and life expectancy, but make it look natural.
We orchestrated famines in low-income countries.
We also promoted of chemical and surgical sterilization — the Pill, tubal ligations — and abortion, presented as “liberation” from motherhood and a civic duty under the threat we characterized as overpopulation. Really it's just about greed. The international bankers want all the resources, and a small, docile slave population.
But my clients realized in the early 1990s that the gradual approach wasn't going to reach the benchmarks fast enough. So we added other programs to ramp up the toxic load, like chem-trails or geoengineering.
We also built on the HIV platform from the 1970s, to develop communicable pathogens more efficient at damaging or destroying human immune systems.
We were basically trying to weaponize common colds and flus, which most people survive easily if they have a healthy immune system. But if you damage the immune system first, subsequent ordinary colds and flus become much more damaging, sometimes lethal, and you accelerate the aging process and susceptibility to cancers and neurodegeneration and a lot of other diseases, even if the target survives the initial exposure.
It turned out that the best delivery system for these immune-system destroyers is through injections and lipid nanoparticle carriers. You can get some mileage out of aerosols and so forth, but healthy immune systems are incredibly adaptable, so we had to get past that somehow.
That’s where it got tricky. Up to a point, you can convince people to sacrifice for what you convince them is the "greater good." You can get them to recycle cardboard and glass. You can get them to turn down the thermostat and put on another sweater. You can even get them to take birth control pills.
But when you walk up to someone who's healthy and going about their ordinary life, and tell them the truth: that you want them to hold still while you inject them with an undisclosed sludge, for the sake of international bankers, "the planet" or "the common good," they tend to run away from you, call the police, or attack you in self-defense.
So you have to lie.
What we learned through psychological experiments in the 1940s and 1950s is that if you bring peer pressure, inculcated respect for symbols of authority, and fear into the scenario, the targets' critical thinking skills, personal conscience and self-defense instincts can be overwhelmed, damaged or destroyed.
So that's what we did.
We set up the right conditions over decades of work: destroying public education; embedding thought-stopping power into the word ‘vaccine’ and suppressing all public discussion and evidence of harms; orchestrating terrifying events (mass shootings, disease outbreaks, terrorist attacks, plane crashes); and building up habits of deference to centralized government authorities.
We worked very hard to destroy marriage and families — especially with no-fault divorce and welfare programs — driving wedges between father and mother, and between children and their parents and grandparents. We destroyed civic associations, like bowling leagues, and religious congregations and doctrinal coherence.
Increasing the isolation of individuals from membership in trust-based relationships has been key. It still is.
We set up the internet to corrupt journalism and literacy, and to pollute the information supply and historical record. We rolled out Smartphones to keep people distracted, confused and on the surveillance grid. We set up online banking, direct deposit, and digital credit systems, to discourage use of cash and destroy transactional privacy.
Then we launched Operation Warp Speed, to speed up the timeline toward meeting those Deagel benchmarks. We said SARS-CoV-2 is an extreme threat. We told people to wear masks, get tested and stay far away from other people. We told people that there were no available, safe or effective prevention or treatment options. We told people that the government alone could protect them, through ‘medical countermeasure’ products we described as 'vaccines.'
And then we set up the 'vaccine clinics,’ also called ‘points of dispensing’ or PODs, and watched people line up, sit down in the chairs, get injected, and go home to get sick and die. [Update Feb. 24, 2023 - CDC has removed the POD page linked above, “Closed POD Toolkit: Fact Sheet for Medical Countermeasures.” Alternative source.]
We had to calibrate it some, to keep people from figuring it out too soon. Some of the injections are saline, and some are long-acting toxins that cause auto-immune disorders, for example. Some are fast-acting toxins — take the shot, heart stops, drop down dead.
Variety is important.
And what's the status of the program now?
Well, it went pretty well for about 18 months, but people have stopped coming back for more injections. That's a problem, because we figured out the LD-50 — the dose needed to about kill half the targets within 6, 6-1/2 years — is three or four doses. A lot of people stopped after two, and a lot of those people, as I said, got saline.
What we really need is a steady sequence of fear cycles, to keep people on a permanent treadmill of injections every three to six months.
We have backup plans. We've had the psychotropic prescription medications program expanding since the late-1980s; helps with pacification and cognitive and emotional impairment. We've crushed domestic manufacturing and used the crack and opioid distribution programs to target low-income populations by race, which has worked really well to induce despair and suicide. And homicide. And also to prevent multi-racial alliances that might correctly identify (and then work against) Luciferian international bankers as the primary threat to humanity.
We've ramped up the aerial chemical spraying and direct food supply poisoning at the manufacturing plants the last couple of years, along with opening the borders to increase the flow of fentanyl and so forth.
We've got electromagnetic radiation and 5G to bump up those daily toxicity burdens. We've got digital control of elections and we’ve installed morons in most of the high-income countries, to maximize corruption and help demoralize populations.
The bankers handle the currency manipulation and monetary policy. That helps destroy small businesses and local and state economies. Which helps maximize despair and suicide.
My clients help with orchestrating more wars and disease outbreaks, fuel supply disruptions, chemical disasters, food processing plant fires, and mass shootings to drive gun confiscation programs.
Our next step is already in the works: diverting food supplies from the grocery stores to distribution centers that we control directly. That's part of why you've been seeing shortages on the shelves from time to time, and construction of massive new distribution centers all over the country.
When the time comes, we'll condition receipt of food boxes on submission to injection.
And, as a last resort, we have the F-15's Biden keeps talking about.
The international bankers don't want the high-income governments to have to do that, because it'll draw unwanted attention and make a big mess.
But if insubordinate populations force our hands, we'll try to deploy the bombers. Military morale and competency is pretty low, so I don't know how long we could sustain a domestic bombing campaign.
Bottom line: We have to hit those benchmarks.
If we hit the benchmarks, those of us who are still around will get bonuses.
If we don’t hit the benchmarks, the international bankers are going to be big mad.