Presentations in video format, 15 min, 30 min, 75 min, more.
Also transcript of Feb. 9, 2023 (one year ago) presentation to Children's Health Defense group.
Feb. 9, 2023 Q & A transcript to follow as separate post due to length.
Feb. 5, 2024 - Feb. 9, 2023 Children's Health Defense Q&A, transcript
Available video presentations of basic legal kill box information, recorded in January and February 2023 (one year ago):
15 min video - Jan. 24, 2023 Katherine Watt briefing on legal kill box for L4Atv1. 18 p. slide deck. Transcript.
30 min video - Feb. 9, 2023 Katherine Watt briefing on legal kill box for Children’s Health Defense lawyers and others. Presentation of 18 p. slide deck is the first 30 minutes of the video, followed by 45 min Q&A. Transcript.
75 min video - Feb. 7, 2023 Katherine Watt briefing on legal kill box for Doctors4Covid Ethics. 36 p. slide deck. Post-presentation Q&A video (90 min).
Related:
Jan. 25, 2023 - C19: Public Health or Defense Operation? (video, 60 min presentation 18 p. slide deck with discussion)
June 14, 2023 - Public health emergencies are camouflaged power grabs. (video, 30 min) Abstract. Slide deck. Academic paper.
June 15, 2023 - Make murder a crime again. (video, 20 min) Slide deck.
Oct. 4, 2023 - Intentional killing. Legal frameworks for State-sponsored biochemical warfare. (video, 30 min). Slide deck.
Transcript - Feb. 9, 2023 Presentation
Katherine Watt - ...It's called Legal Walls of the COVID-19 Kill Box because it's about the militarization of the public health systems around the world, primarily led by the United States Department of Defense and Department of Health and Human Services, which can also be thought of as a public health false front on military programs.
It has been made visible through COVID-19 in a way that it was not visible before, even though it is a very old, multi-decade program that's been constructed over time and reinforced...
So it's called the kill box. It's a term I learned after I heard Todd Callender's interview with Elizabeth Lee Vliet on Truth for Health on January 30, 2022, talking about the World Health Organization, International Health Regulations of 2005, and how those were instrumental in getting all of the coordination at the nation-state level, at the state and province level, down to the county and local level, and into the hospitals and into the schools and the law enforcement.
He called it a kill box, and then I looked it up, and it refers to a military system of planning campaigns to kill people within geographic and temporal boxes. So they set it up. They plan what kinds of air-to-ground weapons they're going to use, what kind of surface weapons they're going to use. They do the killing of all the people in the box, and then they dismantle the framework and move on.
In the COVID-19 world, the kill box can be thought of as being the whole world, not just a specific individual geographic location. The targets can be thought of as being everybody. The duration that they have intended for it is permanent. And they have many, many different kinds of weapons.
This is sort of how I think about the Fifth Generation warfare paradigm. They started with the informational. That includes things like fraud, things like propaganda, things like censorship. And those things also started a long time ago. Sasha [Latypova] has talked about, and I've talked about the movies and television shows and scary reports in newspapers about the big threat of biological weapons and pandemics.
The next layer is the psychological one, where they take the information, and they use that to manipulate the emotions of populations through fear, through terrorism.
And then the next layer up, which is what became more visible through COVID-19, is the CBRN [chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear] weapons, called pharmaceuticals, called vaccines, called prophylactics, or treatments, but which are actually part of this weapons toolkit that they're using to take out the people in the world. Which is us.
And after I gave the presentation [Feb. 7, 2023, Doctors4CovidEthics], someone said, “You should also add in there about disrupting food supplies and financial currency systems and energy supplies,” which is all true. So yes, I added that into this.
So the question I had that led me into this particular part of the global crime was, how did they change the legal systems ahead of time, so that the things which should have protected us from this campaign were rendered immobile and silent?
I saw it happening because I was like everybody else. I was in Pennsylvania with my kids and my husband and the kids' schools, and all this stuff was happening in the spring of 2020.
Then a group of business owners and county governments filed a suit called Butler vs. Wolf. And successfully got a federal judge in September 2020, to issue an order saying the governor, and the Secretary of Health for the state, don't have the power under the US Constitution, or under the state Constitution, to just to suspend peoples' businesses, and take away their property and shut them in their houses.
Then his order was stayed by the Third Circuit [Court of Appeals] almost immediately.
So I was trying to figure out why are these things not working? Why is the Constitution not working? Why are the federal laws not working?
That was where I was at when I heard Todd Callender's podcast about the World Health Organization, IHR as amended in 2005.
Then I started digging into, tracking all of the threads that went into that. And that's what I've been doing for the last year.
I was also interested in the financial coercion mechanisms, because I could see that happening at the school district level and at the employer level, where the schools put in the mask mandates, and were totally impervious to all kinds of evidence about how useless and also dangerous they are. That was because their receipt of the federal money was contingent on them complying with the CDC recommendations, which made them coercive, not recommendations.
That same coercive financial structure has been replicated in a fractal way throughout the whole thing, all the way around the world.
What I found in doing this digging is that the project itself of setting things up to kill lots of people has been going on for centuries, and many, many people have written about it and come at it from different angles throughout history.
But the basic version is that globalist central bankers would like to control all of us, they would like to control population numbers, and their main two mechanisms are banking and financial control, and military programs.
So the Federal Reserve Act is important in 1913, on the financial side in the United States.
Then in the 1930s and 40s, the public health piece sort of emerged pretty much out of the Nazi Holocaust. It was a way of taking what the Nazis did and putting it a little bit underground, so people wouldn't recognize it as it continued after the Holocaust.
This [slide] is just repeating that before World War II, and then for the immediate post-war period, they still were mostly orchestrating armed conflicts, wars, famines. It's also occurred to me that they orchestrate constitutional crises, which is one of the main ways I think about what's happening now. Not only is it a mass murder, but it's also a constitutional crisis that they have set in motion, which is making it harder for us to get through and out the other side.
It was hard when, when things are loud, when it's a war, and you're destroying cities, it's hard to have plausible deniability, and it's hard to have legal impunity, especially as the Geneva Conventions came in, and it was more clear that the world was going to try to respond to war crimes by setting better rules for war. That was the idea.
And so their response was to sort of put it, push it underground into inducing suicide, inducing homicide by fraudulently labeling poisons as medicines, as vaccines, prophylactics, and also putting across in the psychological operations, information warfare that submitting yourself to being poisoned or self-sterilized is a civic duty. "It's good for Grandma," in the COVID-19 world. "It's good for the planet if you don't have lots of kids."
It's quieter as a depopulation method. It's cleaner. People die suddenly, as we have seen, but they also die quietly. They die in their house, not on an open battlefield. And it leaves more critical infrastructure intact. Plus they have more plausible deniability, and it's easier to set up the legal impunity by doing this bait and switch kind-of thing between the military and the public health.
This [slide] is a little bit more about the coercion through the money. At the top is the Bank for International Settlements. At the bottom is individuals just living where you live with your kids and your elementary school.
Everywhere along the line people get incentives to cooperate under the lie that it's for the common good, it's benevolent, it's about public health. This is things like masking, testing, isolating, taking injections.
And you're also at the same time given pretty severe disincentives to resist, as we saw. If you don't go along with it, you lose your job, or you lose your place in school, or you lose access to banking services, or you lose your business if you're a small business owner.
So it's a carrot and a stick, and it goes all the way through the whole system. Bank for International Settlements, federal central banks, which control the national governments.
And the national governments with Medicare and Medicaid and the ESSER [Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund] is the education one, that went to the schools, that helps control the states and the counties and the school districts and the universities. Everybody, all the way down to you and everybody you know.
I got a better understanding of a lot of this piece from Catherine Austin Fitts' work, which I am still plowing through and planning to use and write about more this year.
So, it can be traced back, like I said, to the thirties and forties, but for the purposes of just starting somewhere this slide show starts at 1969 because that's the year President Nixon, in November that year did a speech saying, 'the US Government is not going to do biological and chemical warfare anymore' because of, like I said, the international momentum around UN conventions on biological weapons, UN conventions on chemical weapons.
At the same time he was making those public statements, Congress passed this section of one of the military titles, and it's 50 US Code, Chapter 32, which starts at Section 1511, for chemical and biological warfare agents.
It basically said, 'these things can't be done unless the Defense Secretary says that we need to, and then they can be done, and the people who are doing them need to report to Congress a couple of times a year."
The way that they drove this genocide opportunity through the UN frameworks was to use terms like protective, prophylactic and defensive, and those exceptions were also built into the UN Conventions.
Which is a false distinction, because biological and chemical weapons cannot be solely defensive, solely protective. Every biologically active product that goes into somebody's body, may be toxic or lethal to them because of the things we know about toxicology, dose dependency, differences in how people metabolize things, pharmacokinetics, genotoxicity, all of that stuff.
So it was basically just a lie. But that's where the beginning of the dual use research of concern, and then gain of function, elaboration on that lie comes from that, in 1969.
And since 1969, most of the reporting requirements have been stripped out of that law, [requirements for] reporting to Congress.
Then we jump ahead a little bit to 1983 Public Health Service Act amendment. This was an amendment to the 1944 Public Health Service Act. The 1944 law was an initial militarization of public health.
The 1983 addition to that was the Public Health Emergencies section, and that gave new powers to the Health and Human Services Secretary and established a funding stream. There are many funding streams, but this was among the first, called the Public Health Emergencies Fund. I think it's now called the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund. It has 'social services' added into the name, and they they've given it billions of dollars in the last few years. It's totally under the control of the HHS Secretary.
In the eighties, they also added the 1986 National Vaccine Program. Obviously, everybody on here knows a ton about that.
But the piece for the legal thread that I was following is the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which is the model for the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, and the countermeasures are the weapons that have been disguised as vaccines and pharmaceuticals, as traditionally understood.
Bringing in the 2005 IHR piece, the World Health Organization got under way, I think, in the forties, maybe late, early fifties.
And they passed a first set of International Sanitary Regulations, and then over the decades they amended that from time to time, and, as everybody knows on this call, they're doing it again. They're working on more amendments to make it worse.
But the 2005 amendments were instrumental in setting all this up because they called on national governments to strengthen their own domestic laws and to put more money into domestic programs for surveillance, testing and diagnostics, detention systems, forced treatment systems, training for law enforcement, training, as it turns out, for legal, for lawyers.
Within the last few days, I've found a whole bunch of educational materials put together by FDA lawyers on 'legal preparedness,' which is the law side of all of this. I'm downloading stuff as fast as I can. I'm pretty sure everything I'm going to find will be versions of what I've already found, that they were doing at workshops all over the country, starting in about 2012.
The pretext was that, we need to do all this control to protect international trade from being disrupted by pandemics.
But the actual intent was to set up these legal systems to transfer governance from the nation-states to the one-world government through the portal of the World Health Organization and the event of a 'public health emergency of international concern' [PHEIC].
The result was that Congress and Presidents and Cabinet Secretaries complied. That's one way to put it. But actually, as we've seen in the latest round of amendments, a lot of the amendments pushed through WHO are driven by the US Health and Human services, and also Department of State.
So in the United States, many of the pieces for this 2005 IHR had already been put into place, and many more were put in after. So it was kind of compliance, but it was also kind of directing, because it's sort of a committee of World Health Organization with DoD with HHS that drive the whole program.
Two of the biggest, most relevant bait-and-switch things that happened were in 1997 and 1998.
In 1997, they did an NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act], and also the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act. And that was the process through which they moved the CBRN program from DoD to HHS. Same products, same use of products, but different names for what they were doing, and different housing departmentally, through the 'expanded access to unapproved products' which later was amended into what we now know is the 'emergency use authorization' [EUA] program. And one way to think about it is that they changed the terminology a little bit from military readiness to public health emergency preparedness as just a linguistic thing.
The other piece of that part of it related to informed consent. They were reacting a little bit to the anthrax vaccination program in the military and the severe adverse effects from that and the lack of informed consent.
So Congress, in one section of the NDAA, said, "We're going to make it so that it's much more important and clear that the military has to get informed consent before giving troops these products.' But at the same time, by putting it over in the 'expanded access' program in HHS, they expanded the pool of people they could use, and they also stripped away the informed consent principles there.
So that's why I use the expression bait-and-switch, because it looked like they were doing a good thing, but actually they were not.
And on the product side of the picture they moved the CBRN weapon stockpile, that was now mostly illegal under international law because of the UN conventions, and reclassified it as a National Pharmaceutical Stockpile which they later renamed the Strategic National Stockpile and shifted that from DoD to HHS as well.
But it's the same products, same system, just put in a different department.
These are many of the pieces that were put in, as I said before, with the 2005 IHR under the bioterrorism threat and fear campaign that went along with 9/11 and the anthrax attacks on Congress.
So some of the things they put in place in that early period, with a bunch of different statutes, were to set up program management and who was going to be 'enemy combatants.'
A crucial one was the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force that was construed as putting the United States in a permanent state of war with every other country in the world, because they [claimed] that 'terrorism' could be anybody, it could be anywhere. So the United States is going to go everywhere and kill or rendition, or whatever, everybody they want to, and all people could be construed as presumptive combatants in that war on terror.
People talked about this at the time. This is the kinds of stuff that Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, and lots of civil rights, civil liberties people were aware of at the time and fought against, like the ACLU, that it was de facto covert global martial law, as it has turned out to be.
And then the public health things that started in 2020 just reinforce that or added another layer, like a public health mask on the same structural programs.
2001 PATRIOT Act, 2002 Homeland Security Act set up the Department of Homeland Security as another Cabinet agency to do the same stuff.
So then, from 2003 to 2019, while they were pushing these things through the World Health Organization, they reinforced all of the bars of the kill box with executive orders, Continuity of Government plans.
Congress passed more public health emergency statutes, and appropriated more funding for it. Key ones were the Project Bioshield Act in 2004, and the PREP Act in 2005.
The agencies used those statutes as their legal authorization to draft regulations that they published through the Federal Register. Hundreds and hundreds of pages, implementing these things about testing and diagnostics and quarantine, and all of the stuff that was then revealed starting in 2020.
Department of Justice and Department of Home and Security, and FEMA wrote lots and lots of guidance reports that they circulated down to lower political divisions, like states, towns, tribal governments, and to law enforcement like sheriffs and police departments and state police. So that those people would understand that if a public health emergency was declared, that they would be essentially operating on a war footing. They would be subordinate to the federal government, military, and they would have as their main function, just maintaining public order on the idea that people would be scared and people would be belligerent about not wanting to cooperate with these things.
And that is why the hospital homicides could and still can go on without law enforcement stepping in on behalf of the patients and their families, because law enforcement sees itself, and has been trained to see itself as operating on behalf of the DoD in suppressing rebellion, basically.
They also issued lots of guidance for industry and sent that out to the academic institutions, to the manufacturers, to NGOs, [non-governmental organizations] like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And I'll just say as an aside, I'm sure that the NGOs we're all involved in writing these guidance for industries and pharmaceutical manufacturers. Those were about, or they appear to be about, how clinical trials and product authorization procedures would be handled for things like biologics, vaccines, gene therapies.
We have now come to understand that EUAs fall outside of all of the things that apply to standard drug regulation, and that they were putting out these documents, I think, as part of the fraud, the play-acting.
In this timeframe, they also did more test runs. So that was what 2003 SARS, 2006 MERS, 2009 H1N1, H1N9, lots and lots of things. Each time they added in another piece of the psychological priming, so to speak. H1N1 they did have a 'vaccine,' and they did a big campaign that everybody should get it, but they didn't do that last step of mandating it. And some court cases came out of that that are --
In 2015, the Congress gave to the DoD much more access to the other transactions authority for contracting with private companies for prototype projects. And Sasha talks about this a lot too. I first came across it when I was looking at Pfizer's Motion to Dismiss Brook Jackson's False Claims Act because they argued in it that they were never obligated to do safety or efficacy studies or to submit valid studies to the FDA, because the products that they were hired to produce were prototypes, not drugs, biologics, or vaccines. And it's the drugs biologics and vaccines that the FDA has all of these guidance documents about how to do the studies.
But this was something different. Prototype, as far as I know, has not been defined by Congress. I found a report a couple weeks ago, actually Catherine Austin Fitts found this report, that said the DoD defined it in 2018 as a sort of catch-all addressing certain needs, like proof of concept, model, or novel application.
And then the US Government endorsed Pfizer's argument in their Statement of Interest in Brook's case, saying that it's true clinical trials were not material or necessary for DoD to pay the contractors for producing these weapons.
So in 2020, the Covid big reveal, the WHO Secretary-General issued the Public Health Emergency of International Concern at the end of January. The next day, the HHS secretary fulfilled his obligations under the IHR to declare the public health emergency at the domestic level, and follow that up with PREP Act declarations for medical countermeasures. And that triggered the beginning of the fraudulent clinical trials, product review and authorization sequence making it look as though it was being regulated, and it was a real drug.
And then Congress and the Presidents stepped in and did the major funding packages for the whole program. More executive orders [under the] Stafford Act, National Emergencies Act, Defense Production Act sort of nationalized the pharmaceutical companies as part of the DoD military, industrial complex and started doing the mandates in the middle of 2021.
This is kind of a summary of what the mechanisms do. They set up the funding streams. They eliminate informed consent in public health emergency context in two main ways. I'm still getting, practicing, how to explain this. One way is to reclassify potential carriers, which is everybody, as presumptive national security threats. And then the other way is to, explicitly for the products, transfer the risk-benefit analysis power from the individual recipients as separate human beings to [the HHS Secretary, deciding] on behalf of the whole population in the aggregate. I can talk about that a little more later.
It also shielded products, and which are actually weapons, from product liability. [The PREP Act] shields manufacturers, distributors, and the people who actually do the injections, shields all the people who fund it develop it, regulate it, from criminal prosecution and from civil liability.
So bad as it is, I do think it could be a lot worse. I think they rolled it out faster and sooner than they meant to. I think more people resisted than they expected. I think more people are resisting now over time as more information gets out, and that is making it so that people who formerly over the last 3 years thought it was okay and went along with it are now coming out of the box instead. I think of it sometimes as people on both sides of the walls of the box, and there's some of us who are trying to knock it down, tear it down, or whatever. And there's other people who are trying to keep it standing up. And over time the balance is shifting with that, those two groups of people.
And it's also useful, at least for me, to think about the fact that every day more of what we find is just corroborating the basic bone structure that we've already figured out. It's not like I'm finding stuff or other people are finding stuff like, "They really did do valid trials." Every day we find more stuff about what was wrong and totally invalid about what they did.
So I do think a tipping point is coming, and criminal prosecutions will start at some point…
So this is the last couple of slides, things that they don't like and that they try to weaken and destroy. They don't like federal constitutions, because the federal constitutions could have blocked a lot of this if they had not been set aside. And federal charters like Canada's, things that protect common law rights. They don't like the conflicting statutory frameworks and international laws. That's what I was talking about with the UN conventions against biological weapons and chemical weapons.
And then the domestic laws implementing some of those things like laws that we already have, that criminalize murder, conspiracy to murder war crimes, genocide, torture, fraud, biological and chemical weapons and terrorism, if we can clear past the "EUA-FDA-this-is-a-drug" lie.
...They don't like state and province level laws that protect common law rights, product liability, and things like that. So the more that states and counties and provinces bring their own cases, like state attorney generals, county district attorneys, in their own jurisdictions, again from this criminal side. From this "it's-a-weapon" side. Those are things that they do not like.
They put together a whole report about things they don't like. They keep a database on it. I posted about it a couple of days ago [...]. They don't like things like prohibitions on mask mandates, prohibitions on vaccine mandates and stuff like that. And Wyoming has taken it another step in their state House of Representatives. A group of lawmakers introduced a bill that would block the jurisdiction of CDC and the World Health organization at Wyoming's border, and say "You can say whatever you want at CDC. You can say whatever you want the World Health Organization, but it's not binding in any way on what Wyoming people or Wyoming's government are going to do."
They don't like religious communities that stick together.
So if they don't like it, we should be doing it more, and we should be doing it harder. And then this is the actual last slide. Keep pushing. Keep speaking out against it. Exiting WHO is a very good idea. And everybody on this knows that not only would it to help to weaken a lot of the global systems that are being implemented at domestic levels, but it also would strip away some of the legal immunities that the non-governmental organizations have.
Keep refusing all of the products that they recommend. Keep pushing state legislators, prosecutors, attorney generals, and judges to, pushing the judges to accept cases, pushing the prosecutors to file the cases and the legislators to do these blocking maneuvers that I was talking about earlier.
And keep pushing the state and local governments to set up alternative, decentralized financial systems, because the main thing that they're going to do to crush resistance is to withdraw access to international and federal financial systems and transaction systems. And so we need to have the alternatives set up as soon as possible, so that the state governments, and even Congress, can feel confident enough that if they stop complying with what they're supposed to comply with, and the expected consequences come, there are already alternative systems in place to try to manage and recover from the financial chaos and the economic chaos that happens after that.
