Parallel statutory and international law frameworks: pandemic and countermeasures v. bioweapons
Discover more from Bailiwick News
Parallel statutory and international law frameworks: pandemic and countermeasures v. bioweapons
Today I read a Substack post by Lynn Comerford: Law Professor Francis Boyle, Author of the U.S. Biological Weapons Terrorism Act of 1989, links U.S. Bioweapons Facilities in Ukraine to SARS-CoV-2 & Seeks Covid-19 Prosecutions in the U.S.
“Taking down the biodefense industry is a large task. Where do you begin? Professor Boyle argues one starts with the 15 co-authors of the 2015 paper, “SARS-Like Cluster of Circulating Bat Coronavirus Pose Threat for Human Emergence,” and those who funded it.
You will recognize many of these names: Dr. Francis Collins, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Peter Daszak, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, and Dr. Ralph Baric. These people can be charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder, according to Professor Boyle.
Boyle believes there are legal grounds to criminally charge the people engaged in behavior antithetical to the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 [PL 101-298] and responsible for creating Covid-19 and Covid-19 vaccines.”
That post clarifies that there are at least two parallel legal frameworks that could be brought to bear on the Covid-19 global disaster.
One is the Biological Weapons Convention of 1974 and implementing statutes and regulations in the United States, rendering the use of SARS-CoV-2 and the Pfizer, Moderna and other injections as bioweapons.
The other framework is the World Health Organization International Health Regulations of 2005, with different, possibly overlapping or conflicting, implementing statutes and regulations.
I mentioned these competing frameworks in the short analysis section at the bottom of Legal Walls of the Covid-19 Kill Box posted Feb. 26, 2022:
“Biological and chemical warfare acts are legally-distinct from pandemics. They fall under different international treaties.”
My source for that claim was another Todd Callender interview, conducted Feb. 12, 2022 by Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet, during which they both discussed these issues with Lt. General Thomas McInerney.
McInerney categorized the Covid outbreak and the subsequent injections as acts of war, not as a pandemic of infectious disease followed by a medical management response.
He concluded that Covid-19 was therefore not a legitimate trigger for the World Health Organization’s de facto usurpation of national sovereignty under the 2005 International Health Regulations, despite the WHO Director-General declaring the outbreak a “public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC) on January 30, 2020, and successfully deceiving world governments and civilian populations to cooperate with the coordinated, fraudulent global control-and-compliance program.
In the United States, the control-and-compliance program was imposed in the form of Emergency Use Authorized pandemic countermeasures of school, business and church closures; masking; testing; social distancing; and medical treatments.
All were imposed by implied force, under the 1938 Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act and the 1944 Public Health Service Act and the legal merger of the country’s public health and law enforcement systems through amendments to those two laws passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by American Presidents between 1983 and 2020.
Instead, McInerney argued, all of the public and private acts undertaken by governments, courts, military leaders, schools, nursing homes, hospitals, corporate executives and other actors since January 2020, fall under a different international law framework: the Biological Weapons Convention ratified by the United States Senate in 1974 and implemented by U.S. statutes including the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 (in force as of May 22, 1990 as PL 101-298).
Under that framework, the acts of so-called public health diagnostics, treatments, mitigations, measures and countermeasures are war crimes.
Citizen-civilian-patients are victims.
The agents are criminals.
DIFFICULTY GETTING CIVIL CASES TO DISCOVERY AND TRIAL
It has been extraordinarily difficult for plaintiffs and attorneys to get Constitutional, human rights and civil rights claims past the motion to dismiss stage at the federal court level in the United States, and into discovery; impartial, public judicial review of evidence about the key fact issues; and trial.
The difficulty stems, at least in part, from the two parallel frameworks outlined above, and the deliberate, premeditated legal misclassification of bioweapons as viruses and vaccines.
Key fact issues need to be settled through adversarial legal proceedings and explored through open, uncensored public debate.
These issues include:
the origins of Covid-19;
the integrity of the clinical trials; and
the safety and efficacy of the injections.
Not coincidentally, those are the key fact issues that cannot be presented in courtrooms, or discussed on government-controlled media platforms, health care or law enforcement settings, without eliciting case dismissal, overwhelming censorship and reputational assassination.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
The two parallel legal frameworks are also related to another issue Callender has highlighted in his interviews over the last few months: the US Supreme Court Myriad precedent set in 2013, interpreting a 1952 statute governing the patentability of inventions. (35 U.S.C. 101, PL 593, 66 Stat. 797)
Under Myriad and a series of intellectual property rights (IPR) cases dating back to Chakrabharty in 1980, genetically-modified, living biological organisms become the legal property of the gene-modification procedure’s patent-holder after the gene modification.
Up until now, the precedent has been applied to seeds, mice and other plant and animal organisms.
If applied from this point forward, the law could also govern the ownership of human beings, nullifying the 13th Amendment prohibition on slavery and involuntary servitude.
In such a legal scenario, the owners would be the US government (through the NIH), Anthony Fauci, Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, and other pharmaceutical corporations and government agencies that hold patents on gene sequences found in HIV, SARS, MERS, SARS-CoV-2 and the injectable gene modification bioweapons marketed by governments, pharmaceutical and mass-media corporations as ‘safe and effective Covid-19 vaccines.’
The chattel property class could include anyone who contracted and recovered from the aerosolized bioweapon known as Covid-19 over the past two years and anyone who has been given the injectable form of the gene modification.
If these humans are now chattel property in legal terms, rather than sovereign individuals with inalienable rights under criminal and civil law, then current international and federal laws criminalizing battery and homicide of humans — such as the 1989 Biological Weapons Terrorism Act — may be currently legally inapplicable.
Congress adopted the statute concerning the patentability of inventions in 1952.
The Supreme Court interpreted that statute in Myriad in 2013.
Congress now can — if strong, sustained public pressure is applied — adopt laws protecting the lives and liberties of genetically-modified humans as morally and legally identical to the lives and liberties of unmodified humans.
Adoption of such laws would clear the path for prosecution of the criminals deploying the bioweapons, for the injuries and deaths of the people they’ve sickened and killed.
On that topic: Dr. Sherri Tenpenny provided an overview of more than 40 mechanisms of injury during testimony to the Corona Investigative Committee led by Reiner Fuellmich. She explained the mechanisms in the first 15 minutes of her presentation, covering the acute, chronic and life-limiting disorders she outlined in a 2021 report and others she has identified since her initial review of the medical evidence.
Toward the end of the interview, Dr. Tenpenny also discussed the need for Congress to repeal the PREP Act of 2005, to revoke the civil liability shield currently enjoyed by the bioweapon manufacturers, distributors and government accomplices.
THREE FRONTS IN THE LEGAL WAR - FEDERAL CIVIL CASES
There are at least three main fronts in the legal war as fought by plaintiffs and civil attorneys over the past two years in federal courts, not counting citizen efforts to mobilize criminal investigations and bring criminal charges against ringleaders such as Anthony Fauci, Xavier Beccera, Albert Bourla, Bill Gates, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Klaus Schwab and others, and against local enforcers such as school board members.
Most of those grassroots attempts to get police to investigate alleged crimes, and to get prosecutors to prosecute, are failing. The evidence is presented, but it’s studiously ignored by law enforcement officers, state attorneys general and county district attorneys.
One civil law front includes federal cases brought on transparency, censorship, Freedom of Information and other First Amendment grounds.
Examples include:
Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency v. Food and Drug Administration, US District Court Northern District Texas (4:21-cv-01058-P)
Empower v. National Institutes for Health (NIH), USDC Eastern District Virginia (1:21-cv-01275)
Changizi, Senger and Kotzin v. Health and Human Services, USDC Southern District Ohio (2:22-cv-01776)
The freedom of information cases have had some success, especially PHMPT v. FDA, led by Attorney Aaron Siri, which has resulted in the court-ordered disclosure of large volumes of drug development, clinical trial, adverse effects and deaths data, posted for public access at the PHMPT website and now under scrutiny by a large team of citizens and attorneys coordinated by staff at DailyClout.
A second set of civil cases have sought to stop the vaccine campaign, block further injections, and hold the vaccinators liable under tort law, for already-accrued deaths and injuries caused by the gene manipulation bioweapons.
A third front includes federal civil cases seeking injunctions and remedies for job loss, financial loss, and educational opportunity loss caused by governments shutting down and limiting occupancy of businesses, schools and churches; and/or caused by public and private employers and schools firing and expelling workers and students who either refuse to voluntarily submit to the U.S. government’s branch of the global biowar on humans, or are trying to stop the assault on the People, using whistleblower and fraud statutes.
Most of the federal civil cases are being blocked by federal judges.
Or, if they lead to temporary, preliminary injunctions (almost always on procedural, not Constitutional grounds), the injunctions are later reversed by the appellate courts.
The courts are abandoning victims to the abusive aggression of those who market, manufacture, deliver and administer the bioweapons, those who cover up the resulting injuries and deaths, and those who destroy the economic and educational lives of people refusing to take the shots in self- and soul-defense.
An incomplete list of civil cases (the ones I know of as of today):
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.
South Bay United Pentecostal v. Newsom, USDC Southern District California, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, US Supreme Court (590 US __2020). Challenge to constitutionality of governor’s emergency executive orders.
Jackson v. Ventavia, Pfizer et al, USDC Eastern District Texas (1:21-cv-00008-MJT). Whisteblower, 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.
Klaassen v. Trustees of Indiana University, USDC Northern District Indiana, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Appeal rejected by US Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney-Barrett without explanation (21-2326). University vaccine mandate challenged by college students.
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, defrauding 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.
Keil v. City of New York. USDC Southern District New York, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (21-3043-cv). Appeal rejected without explanation by US Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor (21A398). Challenge to New York Department of Education mandates on schoolteachers and school staff.
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.'
Dr. David Martin’s District Court case in Utah (Griner v. Biden) and Attorney Todd Callender’s Department of Defense case in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (Robert v. Austin), are, as far as I know, the first American cases to break out of the ‘vaccine’ paradigm, and move somewhat closer to the bioweapons framework.
This is an important change in legal strategy, because the Covid genocide has been enabled to continue for so long, with so little public resistance, by being falsely presented — and mistakenly perceived by an isolated, frightened, confused, psychologically disintegrated, involuntarily re-educated population — as benevolent public health interventions administered by dedicated, caring nurses, doctors and pharmacists.
The Covid genocide is not comprised of benevolent public health interventions.
The Covid genocide is comprised of humiliation, ostracism, battery, poisoning, maiming and homicide ordered by pathological, lying, evil people led by Xavier Becerra in the U.S., and committed by people who just follow orders.
Stop complying.
Speak up.
1983 Public Health Emergencies, Section 319, added to Public Health Service Act, 42 USC 247d, and $30,000,000 appropriated to establish Public Health Emergencies Fund
1988 Health Omnibus Programs Act, Section 319 amended, $45,000,000 appropriated to Public Health Emergencies Fund
2000 Public Health Improvement Act (expanded authorities granted to Secretary of Health and Human Services under Section 319, Public Health Emergencies)
2002 Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act
2002 Homeland Security Act
2004 Project Bioshield Act
2005 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act
2006 Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act
2007 John Warner Defense Authorization Act (amended 10 USC 333 re: “insurrection.”)
2012 National Defense Authorization Act (authorized indefinite detention of US citizens without charge or trial)
2013 Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act
2016 21st Century Cures Act
2019 Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act
2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
Parallel statutory and international law frameworks: pandemic and countermeasures v. bioweapons
Frances A Boyle has been fighting bioweapons labs for many decades. We know about the “vaccine”, how it’s made etc. Now is the time for exposing these criminals. Thanks for the post.