On legal strategies and cases already filed.

Griner v. Biden (Utah), Ealy v. Redfield (Oregon) and PREP Act immunity provisions.

Back in April, I sent an email to Attorney Aaron Siri’s firm, at the suggestion of a reader. Siri is the attorney who filed the successful Freedom of Information Act case, Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency v. Food and Drug Administration, which has led to the tranches of Pfizer documents released since November 2021 and under public review by citizen investigators and legal analysts coordinated by Naomi Wolf at DailyClout, and many others.

The same reader followed up today, to ask if I heard back from Siri’s firm and whether it’s worth trying to mount a crowdfunded campaign to get Siri to file a case.

I got a response from an attorney on Siri’s staff, who didn’t want to be cited by name, who provided this legal opinion:

“The “willful misconduct” exception (for claims that can be brought) only applies to manufacturers and distributors. Further, no claim can be brought even for misconduct unless the government (HHS or AG) first brings a claim for the same conduct. So the DOJ would need to bring claims against, say, Pfizer for willful misconduct for a particular action(s) and only after there is a resolution there could someone else potentially bring a claim for willful misconduct.”

---

Siri’s associate was citing to a section of the 1944 Public Health Service Act as amended by the 2005 PREP Act: See 42 USC 247d-6d(c)(5).

In my review of the PREP Act and liability immunity, I think it covers manufacturers and distributors, but also developers at the R&D end, and vaccinators at the point of injection.

But I think the main point Siri’s associate made is right: that before any civil lawsuits by individual plaintiffs can be filed, first the Health and Human Services Secretary or the Attorney General has to file a criminal prosecution, mandatory recall or other enforcement action against the defendant(s), and has to win that case, as a baseline to establish willful misconduct for use in subsequent civil suits. See 42 USC 247d-6d(c)(5)(B)(i).

Health and Human Services employees are immune from suit under sovereign, government immunity.

HHS and the Attorney General are both in on the criminal treason/establishment of the public heath police state.

Manufacturers and other contractors working through HHS procurement are also covered by sovereign government immunity because they’ve been reclassified as HHS employees for the purpose of fulfilling the contracts. See 42 USC 247d-6a(d)(2)(A), passed by Congress in the 2004 Project Bioshield Act.

So HHS and AG, at least until a major changing of the guard, will not pursue enforcement actions against their co-conspirators Pfizer etc.

Which means the first barrier to private lawsuits will not be overcome.

I don’t know if private attorneys like Aaron Siri, Tom Renz, Todd Callender, George Wentz, Jeff Childers, etc., can initiate criminal treason prosecutions.

I think Republican state attorneys general are a better target for grassroots organizing campaigns, since many of them have already worked together to challenge some of the vaccine mandates and other federal acts.

I asked Siri’s associate about their views on the bigger picture question,

“That it appears the US Congress and President, in 2004 and 2005, adopted American laws to automatically suspend the American federal government (President and Congress), the US Constitution, and US federal and state courts, and silently place the country under the control of the World Health Organization and the WHO Constitution, upon the trigger of the WHO Director-General declaring a “public health emergency of international concern,” operational through regulations adopted in early 2017 to authorize the domestic actions of the US Secretary of Health and Human Services, Attorney General, and Department of Defense Secretary that we’ve seen over the past two years?”

They said they hadn’t looked at that issue yet.

---

Another reader provided a link to a report about Griner v. Biden, a Constitutional/civil rights case filed in Utah in March 2022 with coordination by David Martin, author of the Fauci dossier on the US patent evidence trail.

Griner v. Biden isn’t a criminal prosecution for treason. It’s a civil, Constitutional rights case claiming the federal government is improperly violating physician Devan Griner’s rights through the HHS Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) vaccine mandate, which was upheld by the US Supreme Court in January.

The Griner argument also yields some significant terrain right out of the gate. Griner challenges the CDC classification of the products as “vaccines,” but offers as the alternative that they’re therapeutic or medical treatments which Griner has the right to refuse.

Griner doesn’t argue that they’re bioweapons, in response to which Griner, as an individual, has the right of self-defense and in response to which the American people have the right to prosecute the perpetrators for treason, remove them from office, ensure that none can hold office ever again, imprison them, and potentially execute the higher-level leaders since treason is a capital offense.

Martin has said, in interviews, that he sees Griner as the first in a series of cases that will lead to criminal prosecutions eventually, on the theory that the injections turn each human recipient’s body into a bioweapon factory through spike protein production.

As far as criminal prosecutions initiated so far, an interesting one is Ealy v. Redfield, filed in Oregon.

The plaintiffs — a physician and two Oregon state legislators — tried repeatedly between October 2020 and July 2021, to get any Assistant US Attorney in America to investigate their allegations, which relate primarily to data fraud as the fraudulent basis for all the other federal government crimes.

They received zero responses from AUSAs.

Then they filed a petition in US District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division, asking the court to impanel a grand jury in August 2021 and an amended petition in March 2022.

Of the cases I’m aware of¹, the Ealy petition comes closest to the treason prosecutions I think are warranted.

It doesn’t include treason charges, but it does allege that the federal government has committed crimes against the American people and state and local governments.

At some point I hope to do analysis posts about several of the lawsuits, but for now, I’ve only been able to skim, log and briefly think about most of them. Below are the ones I try to keep tabs on.

1

• Butler v. Wolf, USDC Middle District Pennsylvania, Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Appeal denied without explanation by US Supreme Court (20-2936). Challenge to constitutionality of governor’s emergency executive orders.

• Jackson v. Ventavia, Pfizer et al, USDC Eastern District Texas (1:21-cv-00008-MJT). Whistleblower, False Claims Act case alleging clinical trial fraud and defrauding of US government and FDA as emergency-authorizers, purchasers, marketers and mandaters of the toxic products.

• Bridges v. Houston Methodist Hospital, USDC Southern District Texas, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (21-20311). Challenge to private employer vaccine mandate.

• America’s Frontline Doctors v. Becerra, et al. USDC Northern District Alabama (2:21-cv-00702-CLM). Challenge to FDA Emergency Use Authorization of product.

• Robert et al. v. Austin, Becerra, et al. USDC Colorado, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (21-cv-2228; 22-1032). Challenge to federal military vaccine mandate.

• Ealy, Linthicum and Thatcher v. Redfield, Walensky, Azar et al., USDC Oregon Petition to Impanel Special Grand Jury to Investigate Allegations of Federal Crimes (3:22-cv-356-HZ). Allegation that multiple federal agencies committed multiple federal crimes, including rulemaking violations of Administrative Procedures Act, 5 USC 551 et seq., and defrauded US public and state and local governments.

• Costin v. Biden et al., USDC District of Columbia (1:21-cv-02484). Challenge to federal employee, federal contractor and federal military vaccine mandates.

• Navy Seal 1 v. Biden et al., USDC Middle District Florida (8:21-cv-02429-SDM-TGW). Challenge to federal military vaccine mandate.

• Church v. Biden, USDC District of Columbia (1:21-cv-02815). Challenge to federal employee, federal contractor and federal military vaccine mandates.

• Navy Seal 1 v. Austin et al., USDC Northern District Texas (4:21-cv-01236), Class Action. Federal Department of Defense mandate on military personnel.

• Missouri v. Biden, USDC Eastern Missouri (2021 WL 5564501) and Louisiana v. Becerra, USDC Western Louisiana (2021 WL 5609846), appealed by Biden Administration to 5th and 8th Circuit Courts of Appeals. Consolidated 21A240 and 21A241 at US Supreme Court (595 U.S.__ 2022). Challenge to federal mandate on health care workers at Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS)-funded facilities.

• Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden, USDC Southern Texas, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (3:21-cv-00356). Challenge to federal mandate on federal employees.

• National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Department of Labor Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA); Ohio v. OSHA. Consolidated 21A244 and 21A247 at US Supreme Court (595 US___ 2022). Challenge to federal/OSHA mandate on private employers with 100 or more employees.

• Federal Civilian Contractor Employer v. Austin, USDC Middle District Florida (8:2022-cv-00365). Challenge to federal mandate on federal contractors.

• Doster v. Kendall, USDC Southern District Ohio (1:22-cv-00084). Challenge to federal mandate on Air Force servicemembers.

• Griner v. Biden, USDC Utah (2:22-cv-00149-DAK). Challenge to federal mandate on health care workers at CMS-funded facilities, including challenge to the government’s definition of the product as ‘vaccines.’

• Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden, USDC Southern District Texas, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. (3:21-cv-00356). Challenge to federal ‘mandate’ on federal employees.'

---

Saints Cyril and Methodius.