Judge Truncale went out of his way to decline to "take judicial notice" of Brook Jackson's Dec. 14, 2020 letter to DoD.

Also new videos.

Orientation for new readers. Reconstitution starter pack.

---

New videos:

• April 3, 2023 - US Government Takeover Threatening Liberty - Part 1. Jane Ruby, Katherine Watt (22 min); April 5, 2023 - Part 2. (20 min); April 7, 2023 - Part 3. (20 min)

---

Re: USDJ Michael Truncale’s March 31, 2023 order dismissing whistleblower Brook Jackson’s False Claims Act case against Pfizer, Ventavia and ICON.

For background:

• Feb. 3, 2023 - Recap of Jackson v. Pfizer, whistleblower Brook Jackson’s False Claims Act case.

• April 2, 2023 - Repost: Thought-stopping stage sets in legal pleadings.

I've been reading Truncale’s order, thinking about it, taking notes, tracking down citations, re-reading other case documents, and updating my files on six other federal cases that — with Jackson v. Pfizer — I think are the most useful cases for understanding the role of criminal judges embedded in American federal courts, and the pseudo-legal mechanisms through which they operate.

Like their historic counterparts in Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, Stalin’s Russia and many other mass murdering police-states, American federal judges have played a key role in maintaining and expanding the supranational covert biowarfare program run through the Trump/Azar-Biden/Becerra police-state apparatus since January 2020.

The six other cases include South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (USDC Southern California, 20-cv-00865-BAS-AHG); Butler v. Wolf (USDC Western Pennsylvania, 2:20-cv-677-WSS); Bridges v. Houston Methodist Hospital System (USDC Southern Texas, 4:21-CV-01774-LNH); Robert v. Austin (USDC Colorado, No. 21-cv-02228-RM-STV); Griner v. Biden (USDC Utah, 2:22-CV-149 DAK-DBP) and Ealy v. Redfield (USDC Oregon, 2:22-cv-00356-HZ)

There’s a lot to unpack.

While I work through the material, one interesting section in Truncale’s order goes to the “Who knew what, and when did they know it?” question.

He addresses that question at pp. 33-34:

Payment despite knowledge: Whose Knowledge Matters?

A threshold issue that this Court must address is whether the FDA’s knowledge or the DoD’s knowledge matters when deciding how much weight to give to the Government’s decision to continue purchasing Pfizer’s vaccine.

The FDA has known of Ms. Jackson’s allegations since September 2020, months prior to Pfizer submitting its first invoice to the DoD in December 2020. [Dkt. 17 at 69; Dkt. 37-2 at 2].

But the DoD, not the FDA, is the entity that originally purchased Pfizer’s vaccine. [Dkt. 17-1 at 303].

The well-pleaded facts require drawing the inference that the DoD did not have knowledge of the alleged fraud prior to February 22, 2022 , approximately two years after it paid Pfizer’s first invoice. [FN 20]

---

NOTES:

Feb. 22, 2022 was the date Jackson filed her amended complaint.

She filed her original complaint on Jan. 8, 2021.

But after a year of silent inaction by DOJ and Judge Truncale, and Truncale’s gag order on Jackson, the Department of Justice notified Truncale on Jan. 18, 2022 that DOJ had no intention of pursuing Jackson’s case.

Jackson then had to choose between quitting and hiring a private attorney to re-file.

She hired a private attorney and re-filed.

Because Brook Jackson is an extraordinarily courageous, determined woman.

---

Judge Truncale at March 31, 2023 order, Footnote 20, pp. 33-34:

FN20 - The Amended Complaint, which Ms. Jackson filed on February 22, 2022, pleads that Ms. Jackson had previously provided the DoD with the information that serves as the basis for her allegations. [Dkt. 17 at 15–16].

Defendants [Pfizer] ask the Court to take judicial notice of several documents, including a letter from Ms. Jackson’s former counsel dated December 14, 2020, notifying the DoD about her allegations… [Dkt. 37 at 20–21].

Defendants note that courts routinely take judicial notice of facts published on a party’s own website and contend that it is appropriate for this Court to do so here. Id. at 21 n.19.

These documents do not currently appear on Ms. Jackson’s website. While these documents could potentially be introduced through a motion for summary judgment or at trial, they are not properly before the Court at this time.

Accordingly, the Court declines to take judicial notice of these documents.

---

In thinking through Truncale’s question — whose knowledge matters? — set aside (for now) that his premise of separate knowledge bases is false.

DoD and HHS, including FDA, are demonstrably two federal agencies jointly engaged in a covert, dual-use biomedical/biowarfare operation with several other administrative agencies. Their executive secretaries and other high-level administrators share knowledge about the program through coordinating committees including the Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise.

Setting that aside, Relator Brook Jackson stated in her original complaint (Jan. 8, 2021) and amended complaint (Feb. 22, 2022) that she had “provided this information to the United States and DoD prior to filing a complaint by serving a voluntary pre-filing disclosure statement.”

Then in Pfizer’s April 22, 2022 Motion to Dismiss, Pfizer cited Jackson’s website as the source of Jackson’s Dec. 14, 2020 notice to DoD that they wanted Judge Truncale to judicially notice, and attached a copy of the letter as Exhibit E [Dkt 37-5 at 2-9].

Pfizer thereby entered the document into the public court record independent of Jackson’s website and her own two sworn statements about having made “pre-filing disclosure” to DoD.

Nonetheless, Truncale declined to take “judicial notice.”

Why?

To protect the DoD from legal attribution of knowledge of the clinical trial fraud in December 2020, a time when DoD withdrawal from and cancellation of the purchasing and distribution contracts could have saved the lives of the people targeted with the bioweapons.

On Dec. 14, 2020, through Gregory Shilling, the Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the South West Region, Defense Criminal Investigative Service, DoD was notified that Pfizer, Ventavia and ICON were endangering, sickening and killing human recipients of products which the contractors were using on human beings under the terms of DoD military weapons contracts.

Dec. 14, 2020 was three days after the Marion Gruber-led FDA panel’s sham EUA decision on Dec. 11, 2020.

It was the same day the first victims — outside the 44,000 people targeted through the fraudulent “clinical trials” — were attacked with the Pfizer-labeled DoD bioweapons.

Truncale has got DoD’s back.

Having carefully placed his blinders on by refusing to take judicial notice of the Dec. 14, 2020 letter Jackson sent to the DoD, Truncale concluded:

“…even if the DoD was concerned about potential regulatory or protocol violations, the Project Agreement [Truncale’s false conflation of Base Agreement 2020-532, which has been made public in redacted form, with Project Agreement 2011-003, which has not yet been made public] did not authorize the DoD to decide whether the vaccines were fit for purchase.

Instead, the [Base Agreement] vested this decision-making authority in the FDA.

Thus, what matters when evaluating the Government’s continued purchase of the vaccine is that the FDA granted authorization despite its knowledge of Ms. Jackson’s allegations…

---

Bottom line: Judge Truncale has now added his own criminal federal judicial review to the sequence that includes:

• Criminal ‘vaccine’ development and production contracts, which are actually contracts for the development and production of injectable bioweapons.

• Criminal ‘vaccine’ clinical trial safety records, which are actually records of bioweapon potency results for mRNA and DNA classes of injectable bioweapons.

• Criminal ‘vaccine’ regulatory review, authorization, manufacturing compliance and safety monitoring records, which are actually theatrical props intended to block public knowledge that the products mislabeled as ‘vaccines,’ transported across state lines, and injected into military targets, are intentionally-lethal bioweapons.

---

See also:

• Sept. 19, 2022 - In Nov. 2020, Pfizer told FDA reviewers, led by Marion Gruber, that safety studies were neither needed nor conducted. In making that argument, Pfizer cited WHO guidance written in 2002 by a team led by Marion Gruber.

---

---