Notes for state Attorneys General considering filing challenges to protect the people in their states.

Also PDF compilations, and thank you to readers for helping Bailiwick get to 5,000 free subscribers.

I got an email today about efforts to get state Attorneys General (state prosecutors) to take action, through legal challenges including product adulteration claims. The question was about what powers states might have to audit the pharmaceutical manufacturing or regulatory process, or to force investigations, vaxx campaign suspension, or product recalls on provably adulterated, mislabeled, toxic products.

Many, many people have been trying to mobilize state AGs for a very long time now.

And we have to keep trying, until they understand the fraud-based mass murder that’s happening and understand their authority to interpose to help bring it to an end.

My reply, slightly edited:

The PREP Act (42 USC 247d-6d), for as long as it stands without Congressional repeal or court invalidation of it, and for as long as state AGs, governors and legislatures defer to it, appears to block states from engaging in independent vaxx campaign blockades or vaxx recalls or adulteration challenges.

The section is 42 USC 247d-6d(b)(8)

Preemption of State law. During the effective period of a declaration under subsection (b) [that a public health emergency exists], 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; and

(B) relates to the design, development, clinical testing or investigation, formulation, manufacture, distribution, sale, donation, purchase, marketing, promotion, packaging, labeling, licensing, use, any other aspect of safety or efficacy, or the prescribing, dispensing, or administration by qualified persons of the covered countermeasure, or to any matter included in a requirement applicable to the covered countermeasure under this section or any other provision of this chapter, or under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.].

In talking to state AGs, it’s important to be very clear and open about the incredible usurpation of state authority for public health and safety that Congress and President George W. Bush enacted with the PREP Act, especially through this provision.

It’s also important to immediately emphasize that state AGs are among the best-positioned prosecutors to challenge the preemption directly, by filing cases in federal court asking the federal courts to review the PREP Act for constitutionality, find that it violates the 10th Amendment (among many others) and declare it null and void.

Product labeling, adulteration and recall issues are clearly related to that. AGs could easily make the argument that the federal government is killing the people that the state government has a duty to protect from toxic or adulterated products (such as fentanyl, opioids, etc.). [Set aside for the moment that the Covid-19 injections are actually bioweapons, any use of which is an international and federal crime.]

But state prosecutors can't make that labeling, adulteration and recall argument without also confronting the PREP Act preemptions head-on and confronting them hard.

They need to understand that as quickly as possible or they will either give up before they get started (not file labeling/adulteration/recall actions at all) or they’ll file something and spin their wheels until the courts dismiss the cases by citing to the PREP Act preemptions.

The ideal scenario, in my opinion, is for a state AG or several state AGs working together, to start attacking the enabling statutes, on grounds that the federal government never had the authority to adopt those laws in the first place.

They may run into statutes of limitations. In many cases, these horrible laws had final severability paragraphs acknowledging that they might be found unconstitutional, but setting a time limit on the time during which actions challenging their constitutionality could be brought. (Interestingly, the 1986 National Vaccine Program had a non-severability section, saying that if any part of it was found unconstitutional, the whole thing would be unconstitutional too.)

I think the argument the state Attorney Generals need to make is that even though the PREP Act was passed in 2005, the full scale of the effect of nullifying all consumer product/bioweapon victim protections at the state level did not become clear until the federal government actually used it during Covid.

So the clock for filing a constitutional challenge should be started from the date of the Pfizer EUA, for example, (Dec. 11, 2020) or some other, similar date, as the "constructive notice" that the AGs finally got about the impact and clear unconstitutionality of the 2005 law.

It would also be good to let the AGs know that if they go after the PREP Act, they’ll need to go after the related laws, because the laws are interlocking and mutually-reinforcing.

But the PREP Act should be their primary target, because it's the one that purported to strip the state governments of their authority and simultaneously suspend Congressional oversight, the federal courts and the US Constitution.

---

Big gratitude to all Bailiwick readers for reading, sharing, commenting and signing up for free and paid subscriptions. A few days ago Bailiwick reached 5,000 readers on the free subscriber list, and 71 paid subscribers. Thank you!

---

St. Francis of Assisi. Fresco at Benedictine abbey of Subiaco.