On the importance of truthful factual history sections in civil and criminal prosecution of intentional, legalized, medicalized mass murder programs.
A reader’s emailed questions:
With all this remarkable information you have gathered, if you had a legal team at your disposal, how would you simplify it all?
What would you like to see as the dream focus of prosecution?
How would you narrow it down?
Who specifically would you choose to go after first?
My reply:
I would be happy to answer these questions in more depth (provide my views on top-priority civil litigation and criminal prosecution strategy) if you have access to such a legal team, or even one American lawyer — even a small-town lawyer with no constitutional law experience — who understands the big picture and is committed to filing at least one case that responds to it appropriately.
The most simplified way I can say it, is that good cases will start with truthful factual history sections that lay out the statutory, regulatory and presidential executive order history clearly and briefly, and lay out the demonstrable application/use of those laws since January 2020 to carry out an intentional mass murder campaign, also clearly and briefly.
There are several different possibilities to choose from for the defendants, claims and legal arguments/criminal charges that would accompany that factual history section.
But all of them start from the same truthful fact foundations.
The failure of all cases up to this point (that I’m aware of) to do this in the factual history section, is the primary reason that legal and political advances against the country’s legal and political enemies are not being made.
All the cases up to this point ignore/skip the legal history, and adopt the enemy’s false framing of the ‘public health emergency’ and ‘vaccine’ programs.
Related Bailiwick reporting and analysis:
Oct. 13, 2022 - 18 USC 2333 cases: venue, national security, Fauci, summary judgment - “…One possible scenario includes motions for summary judgment, asking the federal judges to review the evidence and arguments presented, and rule that there is no dispute as to material facts: that the evidence against the US Government is so clear, the cases don’t need to move to trial. Plaintiffs will be arguing that the US Government has criminally built an illegitimate statutory, regulatory and executive authority framework to theoretically de-criminalize acts of terrorism and use of chemical and biological weapons against the American people when committed by the US Government itself through the Department of Defense behind the false front of ‘public health.’ And that starting in January 2020, named officials within the US Government actually used those illegitimate legal frameworks to turn real bioweapons on the people…The US Government’s primary defense will — in all likelihood — be based on its arguments that everything done by defendants was authorized by Congress and US presidents through the same statutes, regulations and executive orders. Which means that on the basic issues of material fact, there is no dispute. The only questions are the moral and legal questions: can a government lawfully kill off its own people? Judges can and do summarily grant relief to plaintiffs on the basis of solid pleadings, early discovery and lack of dispute over material facts. The cognitive mind-fuckery the globalists set up is that there’s usually a difference between the facts and the law during litigation. But in this case, the material facts are the laws.”
Nov. 14, 2022 - Thought-stopping stage sets in legal pleadings.
Jan. 26, 2023 - War criminals
April 24, 2023 - Say true things. Don't participate in lies by repeating them. (Video, 13 min). Transcript.
June 16, 2023 - Make murder a crime again. (Video, 20 min)
July 28, 2023 - On skipping past definition of the interlocking crises.
Sept. 19, 2023 - On sovereign immunity. Re-post: Dual-use government officials of concern.
Dec. 11, 2023 - Discussion of litigation strategies built on full understanding that EUA countermeasures are, by definition, not regulated pharmaceuticals.
