On the possibility of patent-based legal enslavement of human beings under US judicial precedents and statutes.

In 2011, Congress passed a law to block it.

Jun 02, 2022

One of the issues Attorney Todd Callender has raised in his work on the implications of the legal frameworks set up to establish globalist control of the world’s people, is the possibility that US Supreme Court precedents interpreting 35 USC 101 - Inventions patentable, could be applied to human beings who have been injected with the gene-altering pharmaceutical products marketed by the US government as Covid-19 vaccines.

On February 26, in the original Legal Walls of the Covid-19 Kill Box, I reported on Callender’s view, which is derived from his analysis of Chakrabarty (1980) and Myriad (2013), which upheld the patenting of genetically modified living organisms and lab-modified genetic material under 35 USC 101.

I wrote: “As of late-February 2022, the US Congress has not acted to classify Covid-19-vaccinated humans as fully sovereign individuals or otherwise legislatively protect them from genome-based chattel slavery wrought by intellectual property law.”

Today, while updating some of the main posts covering the global frameworks and the American legislative, executive, judicial components of the bioterrorism program, I looked again at 35 USC 101 to try to find when it was originally passed.

In the Notes section at Cornell’s statute database — one of the sources I use to track the origin and subsequent amendments to US laws — I found a footnote about PL 112-29, passed on Sept. 16, 2011: An Act to Amend Title 35, United States Code, to Provide for Patent Reform.

At Section 33, the 2011 patent law reform statute provided a limitation on 35 USC 101:

(a) Limitation — Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
(b) Effective Date.
(1) In general.—Subsection (a) shall apply to any application for patent that is pending on, or filed on or after, the date of the enactment of this Act [Sept. 16, 2011].
(2) Prior applications.—Subsection (a) shall not affect the validity of any patent issued on an application to which paragraph (1) does not apply.

This is good news.

The US government and the pharmaceutical corporations might still try to argue chattel ownership of human beings who have been injected with the gene-modifying products known as Covid-19 vaccines, citing the Supreme Court precedents.

They may try to argue that once injected, those people can no longer be legally classified as human beings.

They may even try to argue that no human beings at all, injected or uninjected, possess inalienable rights to privacy, bodily integrity, or physical liberty against State-operated abuse under the US Constitution, or that the US Constitution and US statutes are null and void, and global governance documents such as the World Health Organization Constitution supersede them.

But in 2011, Congress made an attempt to establish legislative protections for human beings — as a distinct moral category of living creatures — against patent-based enslavement.

And that’s good.

Below is a repost of my original reporting on the patent slavery issue from Feb. 26, 2022, which I’ve now updated to add the information about the 2011 amendment to 35 USC 101.

At the bottom of this post is a list of the main reports I’ve published so far on the various aspects of the legal frameworks.

In the first half of the interview, Callender outlined the 2005 International Health Regulations (to which the United States is a signatory), which allow for the suspension of national sovereignty and federal constitutional and statutory legal frameworks during a "public health emergency of international concern" as declared by the World Health Organization director-general.

Callender also laid out the legal significance of a 2013 US Supreme Court intellectual property case (Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics), which rendered genetically-modified organisms (such as plant seeds and mice) as legally chattel property of those who own the patents for the inserted genes.

If that US Supreme Court precedent stands, it could be used to legally render people who have been injected over the past year with the mRNA/DNA pharmaceutical products marketed as Covid-19 vaccines, as the chattel property of the injection patent holders: Pfizer, BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson corporations.

The US Congress could adopt new legislation governing the legal status of genetically “vaccinated” citizens to define them as legally identical to natural humans, thus overriding the Supreme Court precedent and ensuring that they retain all the legal, human, constitutional, civil and other rights that they lack under the GMO case law…

2013 — US Intellectual Property and Patent Law; Title 35 U.S.C. 101

Case law, or legal precedents derived from judicial rulings in court cases, form another reinforcing strut of the kill box structure.

Callender cited Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, a 2013 US Supreme Court case. (539 US 576).

According to the published Supreme Court opinion, Myriad was a company that

“obtained several patents after discovering the precise location and sequence of the [human] BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, mutations of which can dramatically increase the risk of breast and ovarian cancer. This knowledge allowed Myriad to determine the genes’ typical nucleotide sequence, which, in turn, enabled it to develop medical tests useful for detecting mutations in these genes in a particular patient to assess the patient’s cancer risk. If valid, Myriad’s patents would give it the exclusive right to isolate an individual’s BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, and would give Myriad the exclusive right to synthetically create BRCA cDNA.”

The Myriad court distinguished naturally-occurring DNA from synthetic or cDNA (complementary DNA):

“...One such method begins with an mRNA molecule and uses the natural bonding properties of nucleotides to create a new, synthetic DNA molecule. The result is the inverse of the mRNA’s inverse image of the original DNA, with one important distinction: Because the natural creation of mRNA involves splicing that removes introns, the synthetic DNA created from mRNA also contains only the exon sequences. This synthetic DNA created in the laboratory from mRNA is known as complementary DNA (cDNA).”

The US federal government intervened in the case, through an amicus brief filed by the US Department of Justice, taking the position that “isolated, but otherwise unmodified DNA should not be patent eligible, but that cDNA should be patent eligible.”

The Myriad court found in favor of the biotech corporation and the federal government, ruling that naturally-occurring DNA is not patentable, but synthetic cDNA is patentable.

The Myriad case is the most recent intellectual property case in a line that goes back to a 1980 case called Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303.

Chakrabarty was a case about a US patent granted to the inventor of a "human-made, genetically engineered bacterium capable of breaking down crude oil" and upheld by the Supreme Court.

“Title 35 U.S.C. 101 provides for the issuance of a patent to a person who invents or discovers “any” new and useful “manufacture” or "composition of matter." Respondent filed a patent application relating to his invention of a human-made, genetically engineered bacterium capable of breaking down crude oil, a property which is possessed by no naturally occurring bacteria. A patent examiner's rejection of the patent application's claims for the new bacteria was affirmed by the Patent Office Board of Appeals on the ground that living things are not patentable subject matter under 101. The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals reversed, concluding that the fact that micro-organisms are alive is without legal significance for purposes of the patent law.
Held: A live, human-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter under 101. Respondent's micro-organism constitutes a “manufacture” or “composition of matter” within that statute.”

The 1980 Chakrabarty court highlighted the potential moral hazards of its decision:

“[T]he petitioner, with the support of amicus, points to grave risks that may be generated by research endeavors such as respondent's. The briefs present a gruesome parade of horribles. Scientists, among them Nobel laureates, are quoted suggesting that genetic research may pose a serious threat to the human race, or, at the very least, that the dangers are far too substantial to permit such research to proceed apace at this time. We are told that genetic research and related technological developments may spread pollution and disease, that it may result in a loss of genetic diversity, and that its practice may tend to depreciate the value of human life.”

But the Chakrabarty court concluded that such moral, ethical and biological risks were beyond its judicial purview; the judges deferred to elected members of Congress for resolution.

Between Chakrabarty in 1980 and Myriad in 2013, and since, several court cases involving Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta and other biotech corporations developed an ownership and licensing paradigm for patented living organisms such as plant seeds and research animals.

For example, farmers obtain licenses from biotech corporations to grow and use patented seed lines, but the farmers don't own the seeds. So Monsanto and other companies have successfully prosecuted farmers, and been awarded millions of dollars in fines. Farmers have been prosecuted for saving seeds and replanting them in following growing seasons, for example, and they've been prosecuted for GMO crops that have grown, unlicensed, on their land from seeds blown from nearby, licensed crops. See Seed Giants v. US Farmers report, 2013.

The result: under international and American intellectual property and patent law, the act of genetic modification results in the modification-device patent holders owning the modified biological subject.

Judicial precedent applicable to human recipients of mRNA/DNA injections

After injection with the mRNA or DNA spike protein instructions, the human body and its cells become “a spike-protein factory,” as countless explainer pieces have informed the public since late 2020.

Callender believes that because “synthetic genomes are the chattel property, the intellectual property, of the patent holders,” and because the mRNA and DNA pharmaceutical products marketed by the US government, Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson alter the DNA in the cells of the recipients to cause the production of spike proteins and make other, as-yet-unknown changes to the human genome, “All the people that got those shots, are now the chattel property of the patent holders of those shots…”

…One of the legal implications relate to potential prosecution of governments and pharmaceutical companies for homicide.

However, if a person shoots a dog, Callender said, the shooter can't be prosecuted for homicide, because a dog is not a human and homicide legally refers to the intentional killing of a human being.

If — as the Myriad precedent implies — a vaccinated human is legally distinct from a natural, unvaccinated human, and is owned by the pharmaceutical companies rather than owned by him or herself: “Do they enjoy human rights? Do they enjoy protections against homicide? Do they enjoy privacy rights? Do they enjoy any rights at all?” Callender asked. “Short answer is seemingly, No….That's how nefarious and detailed” the plan is.

Taken to the logical conclusion, for however long vaccinated humans are legally-distinct from natural humans, it will be difficult or impossible to prosecute the perpetrators for genocide on behalf of those killed by the injections. The victims, from a legal perspective, are not people and have no natural, God-given or Constitutionally-protected human sovereignty or rights to life or liberty…

Legal framework reporting and essays: