If Brook's case is based on the erroneous assumption that she was working on a real clinical trial, but it wasn't a real clinical trial, and by your citations, it didn't have to be a real clinical trial, I don't understand how her lawsuit could possibly prevail.

Expand full comment
Oct 26, 2022·edited Oct 26, 2022Author

I don't think it can prevail, if she and her legal team stick to their original arguments without taking into account the Oct. 4, 2022 disclosure, by the US Government, that the US Government was not just in on, but actively directed, the planned and executed fraud and mass murder campaigns.

I realized that in May when I first read Pfizer's April 22, 2022 Motion to Dismiss.



My point now is that the Government's Oct. 4, 2022 disclosure opens a litigation path to adding an 18 USC 2333 claim, converting Jackson's False Claims Act case to a criminal terrorism case prosecuted by a private civilian [because federal, state and county prosecutors have been refusing to look at the evidence and bring charges for the last two years], adding the US Government and many of its elected and appointed agents as defendants, and exposing the whole criminal conspiracy so that it can be judicially stopped and the executive/administrative, DOD, HHS and legislative branch perpetrators can be held to account.

It all depends on one whistle-blowing plaintiff finding one federal judge with integrity and faith.

Maybe that plaintiff is Brook Jackson and maybe that judge is Judge Truncale.

Maybe it's not time yet, and there's another plaintiff and another judge waiting to be brought together through the right case. I don't know.

That's the goal as I understand it right now: getting that one plaintiff and that one judge together, through a good case, well-argued.

As quickly as possible.

Expand full comment
Oct 26, 2022Liked by Katherine Watt

But doesn't 18 USC 2333 apply only to "an injury arising from an act of international terrorism committed, planned, or authorized by an organization that had been designated as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act"?

Expand full comment
Oct 26, 2022·edited Oct 26, 2022Author

Yes, and that’s why I also advocate for including Secretary of State, Secretary of Treasury and Attorney General as named defendants when the right case comes along. Those individuals should be charged on a count of breach of duty and related civil counts, for their failure to properly designate the DOD, HHS and Department of Homeland Security as foreign terrorist organizations.


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 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.

Expand full comment

(Channeling Han Solo) I've got a very bad feeling about this.

How diabolical, to write in the law that real actual experimental clinical trials for a novel medical product hastily approved for emergency use, whose safety has never even been investigated scientifically, are legally framed when under EUA as not real actual experimental clinical trials, therefore not experimental, and not for determining safety and efficacy, but can be offered to the public as already proven safe and effective, in ethics-approved experimental clinical trials, bragged about as being safe and efficacious without any actual clinical trial data, then MANDATED!!! and (I am guessing) no one is subsequently liable for violating medical informed consent rules or ethical standards of scientific research. No one is liable for knowingly conducting real actual experimental clinical trials on real live Americans, some who died and many who were maimed, using EUA products, when the law says there are no such trials under EUA. And now we have these products on the childhood schedule. Forget about anyone being held accountable for committing plain old aggravated assault and mass murder by faking clinical trials. Beam. Me. Up. Scotty.

Expand full comment

So where does safe and effective fit into this?

I think from what your saying that no clinical trials are required under the EUA?

Have you looked into SM102 lipid nanoparticle , it's in the shots and listed as for research purposes only and is toxic👍

Expand full comment

My understanding is that "safe and effective" is simply a thought-stopping, propaganda phrase distributed by the US Government in support of the psychological and marketing sides of the overall fraud.

The terms, as applied to the lethal injections, have no legal or scientific significance. The phrase is just part of the social hypnosis project.

And use of the phrase is pseudo-lawful under the 2013 expansion of federal authority to deploy propaganda domestically.

2013/01/02 - Congress and President Obama passed National Defense Authorization Act for FY2013. PL 112-239, 126 Stat. 1957. Section 1078 “modernized” Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 to authorize domestic deployment of propaganda by the US government, on the American population. Propaganda used with tremendous effect on US population to instill fear and promote behavioral compliance with government orders.

Expand full comment

Incredible and shocking law changes and authorized by Obama. Massive shame.

You are an absolute gem. Thanks 🙏 for the detail.

Expand full comment

Thank you I get that but what about SM102, it was/is listed as not for human or vetinary use and the original safety data sheet listed it as a possible carcinogenic and for research purposes only.

And that's moves us nicely into "informed consent"🤑

Expand full comment

I haven't looked into SM102. It doesn't matter what's listed on the label. There's no requirement that the contents of the vials match what's on the label, and so far all the independent testing of smuggled vials has found that the contents don't match the labels at all.



No one in the general public has any idea what's in any of the injections.

There never was any informed consent, and there still isn't to this day.

And it was never required under the pseudo-legal frameworks.

Expand full comment
Oct 26, 2022Liked by Katherine Watt

Out standing, thank you Katherine that gives me great confidence in the product.

Just goes to show how effective propaganda and fear are.

Safe and effective = evil and potentially fatal.🇬🇧🇺🇸

Expand full comment

If I understood the excerpt correctly, any research that is conducted under EUA is exempt from scrutiny and rules and may not be called "clinical research trial" or "experimental" because research conducted under those terms requires ethical oversight, informed consent, documentation and transparency, which the EUA legislation clearly sought (IMO) to eliminate altogether. Hence the use of toxic ingredients like SM102 and other 'stuff' with impunity. "Safe and effective" is just the propaganda lie to distract from the black curtain over the whole EUA mess so the public can be duped into accepting what should be absolutely abhorrent to every voter. I cannot understand the legislators who let this happen. Are they all sociopaths or are they and their aides just too lazy to read it before they vote to pass it?

Expand full comment

Thank you for adding further clarity.

Covid is in essence a cult and that is why the children need to be offered , it is the ultimate sacrifice and shows full devotion to the cult.

This is not accidental and the beings in charge are fully aware of there actions but I doubt that many on lower rungs of the ladder have much real understanding.

Expand full comment

You’re the only one who brings up Brooke Jackson/Ventavia

Expand full comment
Oct 26, 2022·edited Oct 26, 2022

Certainly one of the most! Rounding the earth had them on for a podcast, and a few posts as well.

Have you heard of Brian Peckford's lawsuit(and 2-3 other parties were lumped together) against the Occupying Federal Government in Canada? It was recently brought to a hearing of "mootness" on sept 21st. All parties presented their case for/against mootness, and the judge reserved her thoughts. In the 3 weeks she took to decide on the case, the Occupying Federal Government of Canada's lawyers sent the judge documents, TWICE, that were never used during discovery, and please correct me if I'm wrong, have never been shown to the the 4 parties that were suing for charter of rights violations. As far as I can tell, the 3 parties of the provincial(wishing I was in alberta right now!), and Federal Government no longer represents this Canadian, and frankly, most of those whom I call friends and family. Just talk to some Polish Canadians, about 1-2 generations here, they are afraid...

Expand full comment

I first learned about Brooke Jackson who was fired from Ventavia Research for blowing a whistle on coverup of Pfizer mRNA adverse events on The Thomas Paine Podcast. She was on with that Blackrock guy, Ed Dowd. I regret not saving that podcast. I tried to find it but I do have these links:



Expand full comment

Ed dowd has been amazing so far - from a market/data perspective. Loved it when he started calling it like he sees it, a Democide. Micheal yon has been an interesting perspective as well, very anti-WEF, and a prophet of famines, and regional turmoil. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7gAEkzIgvw - Micheal and Jordan Peterson discuss the pandemic-war-famine cycle

My talk about Brian Peckford's Charter of Rights case was for Canadian exposure : ) but I forgot about links from his blog

Most recent on the court case


and his personal political beliefs - his magna carta


Expand full comment

Thanks for the clarification regarding Brook Jackson's case. Your mind is finely tuned and mentally discerning like a Ninja warrior. I wonder if her lawyers understand what you are talking about.

Expand full comment

I don’t think they do, yet. I’m trying to catch them up, and I think some of them are open to understanding it.

But it takes time to process the scale and recursive/destructive complexity of the law-making evil, and the response is due tomorrow.

Expand full comment

File an extension.

Expand full comment

A article written by Ron Suskind published June 12, 2020

NYT Sunday Opinion

Doctors Are Covid's First Historians


Expand full comment