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.

In an email thread yesterday, I was casting about for more ways to think about, understand and deal with the complex crimes committed by the fiends who have infiltrated the US Government, overthrown the US Constitution and sickened and killed a lot of people.

Covertly since 1969 and somewhat more openly since January 2020.

I hit upon a film pitch about the collision of two legal tropes.

“Shouting fire in a crowded theater” is an analogy used by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. U.S., 247 US 47 (1919), to illustrate potential limits to the First Amendment right of free speech. The Supreme Court later repudiated that particular analogy and upheld broader speech rights.

But the phrase remains deeply embedded in American popular culture.

“When did you stop beating your wife?” is shorthand for a cross-examination technique in which the question is structured such that any answer given by the defendant results in an admission of the implied wrongdoing.

---

Here’s the movie pitch.

The villain is Darpon Fink, an ugly, awkward, reclusive middle-aged serial killer/arsonist.

Darpon gets a job as a building inspector in a mid-sized American city.

His first day on the job, he repeals all the building safety codes.

His second day on the job, he lobotomizes city council members, police officers, firefighters, prosecutors and judges, and then gasses them with paralytics. They sit in their usual chairs, at their usual desks in their City Hall offices. But they can’t move or speak.

His third day on the job — the day a popular musician is scheduled to perform in the city’s largest theater — Darp removes the smoke detectors and sprinklers in the theater and barricades from the outside all but one door.

He positions hired snipers in adjacent buildings, ordering them to shoot on-sight anyone trying to leave the building, and anyone approaching the building from outside to help the people inside.

A half-hour before showtime, the audience arrives and begins to take their seats. When everyone is seated, Darp shouts “FIRE!”, barricades the entrance door from the outside, and sets the building ablaze.

The building burns to the ground and everyone trapped inside is trampled, burned to death or killed by smoke inhalation. Passersby who notice the fire and rush to the barricaded doors to try to get in and help trapped victims, are killed by the snipers.

The next day, Darp hosts a press conference. He stands in front of the blackened rubble of the incinerated theater filled with charred bodies, and the piles of bullet-ridden bodies at the perimeter.

To the assembled media, Darp congratulates himself for this pilot demonstration of successful urban renewal.

The media agrees.

One reporter asks: “When will you bring this excellent program to other communities? Especially, for the sake of equity, to black, indigenous and persons of color (BIPOC) communities in America, and the people of other countries?”

Darp responds that — thanks to a World Arson Organization training program — the same urban renewal demonstration has already been conducted in every other city in the world in the previous week, with equal success.

A few people at the edge of the press conference are confused. Their family and friends died in the fire or were shot dead trying to rescue people.

One of them shouts: “This isn’t urban renewal! This is mass murder and arson! You should be punished! Where are the police and arson investigators and prosecutors and judges?”

And Darpon Fink replies, “It’s not a crime. There are no longer any laws prohibiting mass murder by entrapment in urban renewal fires.”

---

Same issue came up in a recent reader comment:

I have not had time to read all your postings so if I have missed something forgive me. You mention "laws" passed in 2020, which if they violate the Constitution cannot actually be law.

To prosecute these people, provided a court could be found, would not the U.S. Code criminal and civil penalties for acting under color of law apply?

My reply, revised and expanded:

The key phrase there is “provided a court could be found.”

If/when such courts can be found, then yes, color of law challenges could be successfully brought.

A massive amount of unconstitutional law has been passed since around the 2001 PATRIOT Act, and Congress continues to pass unconstitutional laws to the present.

But because of the declared national emergencies (re: terrorism in 2001, renewed every year since and re: Covid-19 in Jan. 2020, extended several times since), all the constitutional provisions for checks and balances between the three branches, particularly judicial review of legislation and executive orders for constitutional muster, have also been putatively suspended.

As have the checks and balances between the federal government and the respective 50 state governments.

Almost all the federal courts have gone along with these pretenses. They have refused to openly declare the constitutional crisis that began around 2000 and became much more visible to the People in January 2020. They have refused to address it or take action to resolve it.

The key piece you’ve not yet seen (and I know the material here is voluminous) through which Covid gave us a window into the covert overthrow of the US Constitution by domestic enemies within US Government, is where Congress pretended to pass a law stripping itself of oversight powers it would otherwise have over the executive branch, and also stripping the federal judiciary of oversight powers it would otherwise have over the executive and legislative branches.

If it weren’t so diabolical and deadly, it could be regarded as a beautifully complex work of perfect, recursive, silent self-destruction by a national government.

Two posts to start down the rabbit hole:

• April 7, 2022 - Responding to Steve Kirsch, James Roguski and others. World War Biochemistry has been underway for decades, key battle won by World Health Organization silently in January 2020.

• April 8, 2022 - Re: judicially unreviewable.

Once the President has declared a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act of 1976 (50 USC 1601 et seq), there are only two ways to terminate it.

The President can declare the emergency over or Congress can pass a joint resolution. 50 USC 1622.

President Biden/his handlers hold the position that the President can and would veto a joint resolution. They issued that response after the Senate narrowly passed a resolution in March that the House later refused to take up. Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas introduced the bill again on Sept. 22.

Once the President has declared a national emergency under the Stafford Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq), as far as I can tell, the only thing that ends it is when the state or tribe that requested federal assistance from FEMA decides it doesn’t want that assistance anymore. It may exist, but I haven’t yet found any information on terminating a Stafford Act declaration.

Once the HHS Secretary has declared a public health emergency under the 2005 PREP Act provisions, he has emergency powers that only end when he stops extending the declaration. Becerra recently extended his own unreviewable emergency powers for another 90 days, on October 13.

So long as federal courts construe the PREP Act and related laws as constitutionally-sound, federal judges can’t review or terminate the HHS declaration. 42 USC 247d-6d(b)(7).

So long as states regard the PREP Act and related laws as constitutionally-sound, they can’t ignore HHS declarations and manage emergencies independently, 42 USC 247d-6d(b)(8).

So long as Congress construes the PREP Act and related laws as constitutionally-sound, the HHS secretary’s only subordinate obligation to Congress is to provide reports.

See Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), 12/30/2005, 119 Stat. 2818.

42 USC 247d-6d - Targeted liability protections for pandemic and epidemic products and security countermeasures…

42 USC 247d-6d(b)(7) - Judicial review - No court of the United States, or of any State, shall have subject matter jurisdiction to review, whether by mandamus or otherwise, any action by the Secretary under this subsection.

42 USC 247d-6d(b)(8) - Preemption of State law - During the effective period of a declaration under subsection (b), or at any time with respect to conduct undertaken in accordance with such declaration, no State or political subdivision of a State may establish, enforce, or continue in effect with respect to a covered countermeasure any provision of law or legal requirement that— (A) is different from, or is in conflict with, any requirement applicable under this section...

42 USC 247d-6d(b)(9) - Report to Congress. Within 30 days after making a declaration under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees of the Congress a report that provides an explanation of the reasons for issuing the declaration and the reasons underlying the determinations of the Secretary with respect to paragraph (2). Within 30 days after making an amendment under paragraph (4), the Secretary shall submit to such committees a report that provides the reasons underlying the determination of the Secretary to make the amendment.

---

Interesting July 2020 Congressional Research Service report on all the changes that the three active emergency declarations — 1976 National Emergencies Act, 1988 Stafford Act and 2005 PREP Act — triggered throughout the American legal system starting in January 2020.

---

Some other notes about the intricate Constitutional crisis trap in which we’re ensnared, in response to comments posted by Attorney Warner Mendenhall, one of the lawyers representing Brook Jackson, on Jackson v. Pfizer and US Government: Part 1 post.

Mendenhall commented:

I wish we could do as you suggested but we have limits in civil actions.

My reply:

18 USC 2333 is a civil cause of action. The US Government has provided an opening to make a creative countermove. The Constitution and principles of rule of law have already been exiled from U.S. jurisdictions. So there’s no downside to trying this and any other legal Hail Mary in the war to restore them both.

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 (8 USC 1189) 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.

---

Possible sequel to World According to Darp

Through a miracle from God and the work of a God-cooperative judge who has been pulled from the paralytic gas chambers of City Hall and restored to full cognitive functioning by lobotomy-reversal surgery, a mass murder and [constitution-burning] arson case against Darpon Fink is brought forward.

A key question posed to Darp at trial:

When did you stop murdering people by trapping them in buildings, inciting panic and then burning the buildings down while shooting would-be rescuers?

---

One more thought, in response to some recent comments alluding to armed resistance:

The opening of a viable path to legal accountability for the US Government-embedded war criminals — which is my primary goal — gives any remaining decent people within US Government an out through which they can segregate or quarantine the rogue bad apples but keep the overall Constitutional republican structure intact.

That's a long-shot. We know that every upper-level government official is in on it.

Still, at least some of the pressure on everyone except the globalist parasite-predators right now is how to bring this massive crime spree to an end and start the trial-prep phase without open bloodshed on the streets from enraged survivors taking matters into their own hands.

For all but the globalists, it would be good to stop the bloodshed now, limiting the toll to the millions of injured and dead Covid and vaxx victims, and prevent more people from being maimed and killed through the same criminal cull.

For the globalists, open street warfare would be great. It’s exactly what they want bereaved and outraged victims to do, because they will use it to justify the subsequent brutal repression of open martial law, forced detentions and extrajudicial executions conducted within the confines of quarantine camps.

Stand your ground on your own property if and when the armed bootlickers come to your doorstep and threaten you and your family.

But in all other scenarios, stick to total nonviolent noncompliance and building public momentum to support war crimes trials conducted by courageous, wise federal judges serving a revitalized, restored Constitutional republic.

---

The Temptation of Saint Hilarion. Painting by Octave Tassaert.