Possibilities for proving intent

The work product of attorneys Susan E. Sherman, Wen W. Shen, Dawn Johnsen and the July 6, 2021 Department of Justice legal opinion.

Last updated 07/05/2022

Two pieces of work in progress.

I’m finishing another post on ultra vires, looking at federal cases that have already cited the principle in challenging federal government acts that go beyond constitutionally-legitimate authority, and expanding on their approach. Planning to post later this week.

I’m also starting a piece on the sequence of legal steps taken by the US government to destroy the principle of informed consent, which was — before its destruction — the single most-effective legal barrier to the depopulation-by-coerced-lethal-injection program.

Dismantling informed consent was the start of the cover-up for the government’s Covid-19 crimes, and the dismantling process predated Covid-19, providing evidence of intent.

The primary document is the July 6, 2021 slip opinion written by Deputy Attorney General Dawn Johnsen, which defines the legal question as: Whether Section 564 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Prohibits Entities from Requiring the Use of a Vaccine Subject to an Emergency Use Authorization.

Attorney Johnsen did not address the question of whether any public or private entity is ever authorized to suspend informed consent rights and engage in coerced bodily trespass.

She addressed instead whether any Congressional law specifically prohibited suspension of informed consent, and finding none in her review, concluded that Congress permitted entities to use coercion to violate bodily integrity through mandated medical treatment.

Attorney Johnsen’s opinion laid out the legal basis for the vaccine mandates imposed by the Biden Administration, state and local governments, public and private schools, and private employers, including:

• 2021/08/24 - Department of Defense order from Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin on military personnel in Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard.

• 2021/09/09 - Biden Executive Order 14042 on federal contractors.

• 2021/09/09 - Biden Executive Order 14043 on federal employees

• 2021/09/09 - Biden directive to Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on private employers with more than 100 employees.

• 2021/11/05 - Biden directive to Department of Health and Human Services Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes and other federally-funded facilities.

---

The topic of proving intent came up this morning in a Gab thread discussing Paul Alexander’s recent Substack post Warning: coming many Americans, many people will die because of these COVID injections, many healthy children WILL die due to these shots; FDA, CDC, NIH, Moderna, & Pfizer secretly told me this.

…I was told by these officials (FDA, CDC, NIH, Moderna, & Pfizer), in confidential secret discussions, that in about 6 to 6.5 years from roll-out, in those who take the injections, they feared mass auto-immune disease and deaths, they feared viral immune escape and very problematic variants, and they anticipated constant deaths from the injections but a major number of deaths to emerge. I could not even understand exactly what they did for it was so haphazard, but these were officials. And they wanted to talk to me. To tell me ‘their truths’.

They said based on all they knew, that the COVID injections could never work, especially the mRNA platform. It never worked in the animal model and was pathological. They told me that in about 6 to 6.5 years, there will be a surge in deaths in persons who take the injections (then about 1 year ago). This was their projection. They advised me they nor their families will never (especially their children) take any of the COVID injections.

---

DoorlessCarp posted on Gab:

The rest of us had to work this out by trawling through preprints & clinical reports.

And added:

“6 to 6.5 years from rollout" is very specific. I believe they are working on the same 5 year post exposure data I posted last week for heart disease & cancer symptomology, now autoimmune disorders too, then allowed for 12-18 months or 3-4 boosters on top of that. They obviously know the LD50 is 3-4 doses for the bell curve to peak then.

---

NehmingNehms replied:

LD50, for those who don't know, is the lethal dose that kills half of those to whom it's administered. Not to put too fine a point on it, Big Health was worried about mass casualties, but not worried enough to prevent them from reeling in massive profits. We really need to start calling this what it is: intentional mass murder.

---

ManDownUnder replied:

The tough part is going to be proving the "intentional" aspect. The "mass murder" aspect? That will become obvious. But, being realistic, how do you prove intent with this? Negligence? Recklessness? Corporate greed? Sure, that part will be easy. But intent? That's going to be a tough nut to crack, short of someone giving themselves up and rolling on others...

---

I replied:

I think we can prove the intentional part, through proving the deliberate, premeditated legal process of eliminating informed consent via statutes, regulations and guidance documents.

I’m currently focusing on the acts, arguments and documents produced by two people: Attorney Susan E. Sherman of the Office of General Counsel for HHS, and Attorney Dawn Johnsen, Deputy Attorney General at DOJ, through the July 6, 2021 Slip Opinion: Whether Section 564 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Prohibits Entities from Requiring the Use of a Vaccine Subject to an Emergency Use Authorization — and the authorities cited by Johnsen in that opinion, which was used to back the federal and private employer ‘mandates.’

Sherman’s key contribution (that I’ve found so far) shows up around 2009/2010 with H1N1, EUAs and the Strategic National Stockpile — the US government’s bioweapons depot.

2009/11/18 HHS FDA Workshop Summary - Medical Countermeasures Dispensing: Emergency Use Authorization and the Postal Model at p. 26

“At the workshop, participants noted that EUA has a broader use beyond enabling the use of an unapproved product or extending the use of an approved product to populations for which it was not approved. In particular, it can also be used to address labeling requirements and other challenges that arise because of constraints inherent in a public health response. ‘From a legal perspective, there are a lot of situations where EUA helps get past all those requirements,’ said [Susan E. Sherman, J.D., M.S., a senior attorney with the Office of the General Counsel, HHS] ‘You can change the labeling. You can change the information. You can change the dosage. You can give it to populations for which wasn’t approved.’ ”

Sherman’s bio from a 2016 workshop report on The Nation's Medical Countermeasure Stockpile: Opportunities to Improve the Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Sustainability of the CDC Strategic National Stockpile:

Susan E. Sherman, J.D., M.S., is a senior attorney with the Office of the General Counsel, HHS. She provides legal advice to the HHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, advising on a wide variety of legal issues related to federal public health emergency preparedness and response. Earlier in her career at HHS, she advised the National Institutes of Health on legal issues related to biomedical research grants administration, human subjects protection, and laboratory animal welfare. Prior to working at HHS, she worked at the Institute of Medicine on studies leading to publications, including The Future of Public Health and Quality of Care in Nursing Homes. She holds a law degree from the George Washington University National Law Center and a master's degree in health science from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

---

Below is a list of events and documents in the paper trail leading to the Johnsen Slip Opinion; the documents form the backbone of the longer post on the destruction of informed consent that I hope to finish and publish in a few weeks.

2003/04/04 - Congressional hearing on Project Bioshield: Contracting for the Health and Security of the American Public. Congress members discussed authorizing HHS to waive informed consent during declared emergencies. (06/14/2022 Bailiwick post.)

2003/04/04 - President George W. Bush Executive Order 13295 added symptomatic SARS to list of quarantinable communicable diseases, authorizing HHS to order apprehension and indefinite detention of Americans for contracting common respiratory illnesses. 42 USC 264, 42 CFR 70.6.

2003/11/24 - National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). PL 108-136, 117 Stat. 1392.

• At Section 1603(a) of the NDAA, Congress created 21 USC 360bbb-3 - “Section 564 - Authorization for Medical Products for Use in Emergencies” under the EUA part of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act as amended in 1997 to add 21 USC 360bbb “Expanded Access to Unapproved Diagnostics and Therapies.”

• At Section 1603(b)(1) of the NDAA, Congress added Section 1107a to the military code after 10 USC 1107, authorizing the US President to waive informed consent rights of military personnel during declared emergencies and redefining the meaning of the right to be “informed of an option to accept or refuse administration of a product.”

2003/12/22 - Doe v. Rumsfeld, 297 F Supp. 2d 119 (DDC 2003), addressing Presidential waivers of informed consent in the anthrax vaccination campaign context.

2004/07/21 - 2004 Project Bioshield Act - PL 108-276, 118 Stat. 835. Amendments to Public Health Service Act and Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act. Nullified informed consent principles under US law; amended, expanded and funded ‘Emergency Use Authorization’ bioweapons research, development, procurement, contracting, manufacture, marketing and distribution program.

2005/07/05 - HHS FDA Draft Guidance Re: Emergency Use Authorization of Medical Products. 70 FR 38689

2007/05/04 - President George W. Bush National Security Presidential Directive 51.

2007/07/01 - HHS FDA Guidance - Emergency Use Authorization of Medical Products. 71 FR 41083. Finalized draft guidance published in Federal Register July 5, 2005 (70 FR 38689).

2007/12/28 - HHS FDA Exceptions or Alternatives to Labeling Requirements for Products Held by the Strategic National Stockpile. 72 FR 73589.

2009/11/18 - 2009/11/18 HHS FDA Workshop - Medical Countermeasures Dispensing: Emergency Use Authorization and the Postal Model

2010/03/23 - Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. Related to the legal, approval/authorization, labelling and marketing differences among ‘biosimilars,’ BLA (Biologics License Application) products, and EUA products.

2014/07/31 - President Barack Obama Executive Order 13674, adding asymptomatic, suspected SARS to list of quarantinable communicable diseases.

2016/10/24 - US Government Workshop: The Nation's Medical Countermeasure Stockpile: Opportunities to Improve the Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Sustainability of the CDC Strategic National Stockpile

2017/01/13 - HHS FDA Guidance: Emergency Use Authorization of Medical Products and Related Authorities. (Update/revision to 07/01/2007 version)

2017/01/19 - HHS Final Rule - Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. 82 FR 7149. Joint rule by 16 federal agencies, subsequently adopted by other agencies. Revised 1991 Common Rule, which had been developed based on 1947 Nuremberg Code and 1978 Belmont Report.

2017/01/19 HHS Final Rule - Control of Communicable Diseases Final Rule. 82 FR 6890

2017/07/25 - HHS FDA Guidance: IRB Waiver or Alteration of Informed Consent for Clinical Investigations Involving No More Than Minimal Risk to Human Subjects.

2017/12/12 - Act to amend FDCA EUA statute, 21 USC 360bbb-3. PL 115-92, 131 Stat. 2023. (3 pages). Provided for “Additional Emergency Uses for Medical Products to Reduce Deaths and Severity of Injuries Caused by Agents of War”

2019/05/22 - Congressional Research Service Opinion: An Overview of State and Federal Authority to Impose Vaccination Requirements by Wen W. Shen

2020/05/19 - Advisory Opinion on the PREP Act and the March 10, 2020 Declaration Under the Act, April 17, 2020, as modified on May 19, 2020, by Robert P. Charrow of HHS Office of General Counsel. Legal opinion on statutory liability shields.

2020/08/26 - HHS CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Meeting Summary Report. At p. 56 - “Dr. Cohn reminded everyone that under an EUA, vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. Therefore, early in the vaccination phase individuals will have to be consented and cannot be mandated to be vaccinated.” [Attorney Johnsen cited this interpretation of Section 564 in a footnote on p. 7 of her slip opinion, immediately citing the judge’s June 12, 2021 order in Bridges v. Houston Methodist as “summarily rejecting” the argument.]

2021/04/02 - Congressional Research Service Opinion: State and Federal Authority to Mandate COVID-19 Vaccination by Wen W. Shen

2021/06/12 - Bridges v. Houston Methodist Hospital, 543 F. Supp. 3d 525 (S.D. Tex. 2021). Federal judge ruled that informed consent doesn't apply to hospital workers, because the injections are government-authorized under FDA Emergency Use Authorization, therefore not part of experimental clinical trials or ordinary medical treatments, therefore hospital employees cannot be legally construed as human subjects or ordinary patients, therefore they have no individual, Constitutional liberties; rights to privacy and against government violation of bodily integrity; or rights to be secure in their persons against warrantless search and seizure.

2021/06/25 - FDA EUA Pfizer Fact Sheet addressing “option to accept or refuse.” This is only one of many versions issued between December 2020 and present; it’s the one cited by Attorney Johnsen in her legal opinion.

2021/07/06 - Dawn Johnsen, Deputy Attorney General at DOJ Slip Opinion: Whether Section 564 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Prohibits Entities from Requiring the Use of a Vaccine Subject to an Emergency Use Authorization.

---

St. Irenaeus.