It occurred to me today, in addition to being similar to the election fraud cases being rejected before discovery and evidentiary hearings, these are also similar to the international trade agreements like NAFTA, Multilateral Agreement on Investments, and the Trans Pacific Partnership - some of which have passed and some of which have not. But some of the main things anti-globalist protestors dating back to at least 1998 raised the alarm about, were provisions in the treaties that would override federal courts and place all dispute resolution into international forums controlled by the World Trade Organization.
My understanding is that the people who wrote the statutes — probably pharma lobbyists and WHO technocrats on behalf of financial elites — wrote them carefully to split apart the people who knew how deadly the shots are (the corporate executives, attorneys and researchers) from the people who would actually administer them (the nurses, pharmacists and doctors). So they wrote in two prongs plaintiffs must prove for defendants to be culpable: “willful misconduct” (knowingly engaging in bad behavior like clinical trial fraud or adding toxic ingredients to vials) and “proximate” to injury and death (being near in time and space to the victim.
The corporate executives and researchers knew but weren’t proximate, because they didn’t personally inject victims. The nurses and pharmacists were proximate to the injuries (delivered the injections) but didn’t know about the clinical trial fraud and adulterated contents of the vials.
Can you try to ask Aaron Siri (https://www.sirillp.com/aaron-siri/) how bullet-proof this scheme is? He's a brilliant lawyer that successfully sued FDA to release the Pfizer EUA documents expediently, not in 75 years.
I got a reply from staff at his office (who prefer not to be identified), saying that the “willful misconduct” exception (for claims that can be brought) only applies to manufacturers and distributors.
I’m not sure that’s true; I think there are provisions covering vaccinators (nurses and pharmacists) as well, but will confirm for sure when I get to writing up a detailed summary and analysis of the 2004 and 2005 statutes and the multiple HHS EUA declarations issued between Feb. 2020 and Jan. 2022.
The staffer also said that, as far as they know, no private plaintiff can make a liability claim at all unless the US government (Health and Human Services or Attorney General) first brings a claim for the same conduct against the pharmaceutical corporation, specifying the actions that Pfizer, for example, took that meet the legal standards for willful misconduct.
Private plaintiffs could only bring claims after there is a resolution of the government’s claims, in which the court finds the corporation liable.
Again, I need to track down the language in the PREP act to confirm that legal opinion, but I think that’s probably correct, if only because it makes it even harder for private plaintiffs to bring cases, by setting up another barrier.
Once I’ve got the citations and understand them, I’ll do a post about this specific issue.
I also asked them about the bigger picture -whether they think the US Congress and President, in 2004 and 2005, adopted American laws to automatically suspend the American federal government (President and Congress), the US Constitution, and US federal and state courts, and silently place the country under the control of the World Health Organization and the WHO Constitution, upon the trigger of the WHO Director-General declaring a “public health emergency of international concern,” operational through regulations adopted in early 2017 to authorize the domestic actions of the US Secretary of Health and Human Services, Attorney General, and Department of Defense Secretary that we’ve seen over the past two years.
Thanks for doing this! If this president and this gov't are on board, there is no guarantee the next one(s) will be too. They walk on thin ice right now. Hopefully your inquiry will attract this firm's attention.
I can try to contact Siri. I sent the info to Todd Callender yesterday - he’s representing military personnel in a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals case against Department of Defense. Robert v. Austin, 22-1032, and just filed the appellate brief in that case on March 28.
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I vividly recall the "moot" and "standing" SCOTUS "punts" related to this AND the election fraud.
So all branches are lost beyond repair. We've tried the soap box and the ballot box. Only one box left.
It occurred to me today, in addition to being similar to the election fraud cases being rejected before discovery and evidentiary hearings, these are also similar to the international trade agreements like NAFTA, Multilateral Agreement on Investments, and the Trans Pacific Partnership - some of which have passed and some of which have not. But some of the main things anti-globalist protestors dating back to at least 1998 raised the alarm about, were provisions in the treaties that would override federal courts and place all dispute resolution into international forums controlled by the World Trade Organization.
My thought on that is that, well, countries break treaties. And that I really wish Trump had succeeded at exiting WHO.
Me too.
We absolutely must clarify this issue NOW.
What if there is a proven malfeasance? All immunity should be mute and void at this point?
My understanding is that the people who wrote the statutes — probably pharma lobbyists and WHO technocrats on behalf of financial elites — wrote them carefully to split apart the people who knew how deadly the shots are (the corporate executives, attorneys and researchers) from the people who would actually administer them (the nurses, pharmacists and doctors). So they wrote in two prongs plaintiffs must prove for defendants to be culpable: “willful misconduct” (knowingly engaging in bad behavior like clinical trial fraud or adding toxic ingredients to vials) and “proximate” to injury and death (being near in time and space to the victim.
The corporate executives and researchers knew but weren’t proximate, because they didn’t personally inject victims. The nurses and pharmacists were proximate to the injuries (delivered the injections) but didn’t know about the clinical trial fraud and adulterated contents of the vials.
Can you try to ask Aaron Siri (https://www.sirillp.com/aaron-siri/) how bullet-proof this scheme is? He's a brilliant lawyer that successfully sued FDA to release the Pfizer EUA documents expediently, not in 75 years.
I got a reply from staff at his office (who prefer not to be identified), saying that the “willful misconduct” exception (for claims that can be brought) only applies to manufacturers and distributors.
I’m not sure that’s true; I think there are provisions covering vaccinators (nurses and pharmacists) as well, but will confirm for sure when I get to writing up a detailed summary and analysis of the 2004 and 2005 statutes and the multiple HHS EUA declarations issued between Feb. 2020 and Jan. 2022.
The staffer also said that, as far as they know, no private plaintiff can make a liability claim at all unless the US government (Health and Human Services or Attorney General) first brings a claim for the same conduct against the pharmaceutical corporation, specifying the actions that Pfizer, for example, took that meet the legal standards for willful misconduct.
Private plaintiffs could only bring claims after there is a resolution of the government’s claims, in which the court finds the corporation liable.
Again, I need to track down the language in the PREP act to confirm that legal opinion, but I think that’s probably correct, if only because it makes it even harder for private plaintiffs to bring cases, by setting up another barrier.
Once I’ve got the citations and understand them, I’ll do a post about this specific issue.
I also asked them about the bigger picture -whether they think the US Congress and President, in 2004 and 2005, adopted American laws to automatically suspend the American federal government (President and Congress), the US Constitution, and US federal and state courts, and silently place the country under the control of the World Health Organization and the WHO Constitution, upon the trigger of the WHO Director-General declaring a “public health emergency of international concern,” operational through regulations adopted in early 2017 to authorize the domestic actions of the US Secretary of Health and Human Services, Attorney General, and Department of Defense Secretary that we’ve seen over the past two years.
They said they hadn’t reviewed that yet.
Thanks for doing this! If this president and this gov't are on board, there is no guarantee the next one(s) will be too. They walk on thin ice right now. Hopefully your inquiry will attract this firm's attention.
I can try to contact Siri. I sent the info to Todd Callender yesterday - he’s representing military personnel in a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals case against Department of Defense. Robert v. Austin, 22-1032, and just filed the appellate brief in that case on March 28.
I like the way Siri disects issues and exposes the absurdities in an irrefutable form.
He's a brilliant guy too, clear understanding and really deep inroads into the issues, but less diplomatic than Siri, IMO.