I am relatively new to your content, and I'm not a lawyer (but I am in law school, FWIW, 1L) so if my question has already been answered somewhere in your content or seems redundant, forgive me.

Is it possible that they (govt) don't mind allowing Pfizer to take the "fall" publicly, and this is the plan?

Also, so if this is DoD which means our own govt is harming us... do we suspect our govt is working in the interest of another adversarial (to us/U.S.) govt?

Is there someone beyond our govt running this show? I am aware of WEF, WHO, etc... I'm just having trouble figuring out who is ultimately at the top and what the exact end goal is, or if we even know that, yet ...

Expand full comment

It takes a time and emotional energy to get a handle on these things, so I recommend starting to work your way through the material at the orientation post. Process it in small doses over a week or more.


Short answers:

Yes, the focus on Pfizer right now is part of the op, to direct public anger away from US Gov/DOD program.

Yes, US Gov is working on behalf of BIS/WHO and the owners of BIS. Catherine Austin Fitts has been doing tons of work to get the information into public hands for many years, and Sasha has a great post about the "why" of all this, out today, linking to a CAF video:


I've addressed my own views on "who's at the top" a few times, most recently here:


Expand full comment

I was so heartened to see you as CAF's "hero of the week" recently, Katherine. It is well deserved praise for you and Sasha to be mentioned in her Solari Report. Deepest gratitude for all you are doing.

Expand full comment

I see the names of a lot of people Whitney Webb also talks about. I hope y'all follow her work, too. She's a walking encyclopedia!

Expand full comment

Very difficult to understate my disappointment with Robert Barnes on this please check what he said in his brief today about your workhttps://vivabarneslaw.locals.com/upost/3525506/barnes-brief-valentines-day-2023

Expand full comment

[the ‘prototypes’ under production were and still are a class of bioweapons intended to harm and kill targets]

I'm new here, too, and will look at these primer links you've posted. So if this question is already answered in that material, feel free to ignore my question.

That statement is a strong one. Where / how have you established intent?

Expand full comment
Feb 3, 2023·edited Feb 3, 2023Author

The primary means of establishing intent is the failure of the acting government officials to fulfill the regulatory obligations that would have applied if the products were drugs or other medicinal products. They demonstrably did not block the products from being used, as soon as the earliest evidence of serious adverse events and deaths became clear at the start of the “clinical trials,” in Summer 2020, and have demonstrably continued to fail to fulfill those regulatory obligations ever since, as more and more evidence was collected and provided to them. That goes to proving that the products are not medicinal, but are weapons. Construed as weapons, the government’s failure to act to pull them from the “market,” which is not a market because the government is the only purchaser, demonstrates intent.

Another piece of the intent package is the documented, premeditated, deliberate, willful, knowing dismantling of informed consent regulations under ‘public health emergency’ conditions. There is no morally valid or lawful basis to dismantle informed consent for medicinal products intended to protect or heal the recipients, when those recipients are construed as individuals with personal dignity and other human and constitutional rights.

The only reason to destroy informed consent principles (under illegitimate legal frameworks) is to facilitate forced application of the products, as a class of weapons used on target populations during an attack rendered covert through redefinition of terms such as vaccine, immunity, rights, information, risks, benefits, rights to accept or decline offered products, coercion, and employment and educational positions, which have been re-defined as privileges dependent upon submission to unwanted bodily trespass conducted on fraudulent grounds.

I haven’t done many posts solely focused on the issue of intent, (prioritizing other aspects of the legal puzzle) but did do an introductory post in July 2022:


Expand full comment

As legal research continues, I find more material to support the intent prong, including this August 2020 FDA-CDC slide deck:


Sasha has also addressed intent:


Expand full comment

Thanks, Katherine!

fwiw, I bumped to paid subscription.

Keep going!

Expand full comment

Thinking I will do the same. I pay for a flippin NYT subscription- not because I believe them or enjoy their content, but because I don't like to exist in an echo chamber, and I feel like it is useful to see what's being pushed in MSM etc. It's kind of like a "don't ever turn your back to your enemies" type of thinking, in my mind, anyway.

Expand full comment

Yeah, truly fascinating what the NYT pushes. More fascinating is that it's accepted by anyone.

Expand full comment

Isn't it possible to keep an eye on the beast without actually feeding it?

Expand full comment

"And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee."

This quote from Nietzsche also comes to my mind,we should all be very carefull in this pursuit. Every now and then i ask myself :" Is it maybe a time to stop with this search and research for the truth?" To just except this posttruth world that is uncovering infront our eyes..

I know its hard,most people who didnt fall for this operation has something inside them that is pushing us into this pursuit,its like a drug.

Expand full comment

Brilliant work Katherine, you are amazing. My take is probably an obvious one but here it is; “They” are scrambling to stay in the shadows and keep us in the dark. With Brook and the other whistleblowers coming forward with evidence, and along with your diligent work of putting the facts in order, the light is being shed on what they don’t want known. This is their weakness. That and now the facts are beginning to show that they knew, what we only could guess, which is they knew they were doing wrong all along. It’s going to be a hard fought process and they will more then likely go down and dirty to win. We can count on them putting their best lawyers on this to suppress the whistleblowers and the evidence it at the very least. Which they have begun to do.

And, They cannot allow themselves to be seen as the bad guys. Too much at stake for them. Their elitist arrogance blinds them to the Truth and suppresses their individual morality. If the public goes against them, they are finished. Is it ironic that it’s the public who they took responsibility for in creating the jab so they could be he ones to save humanity from the CoVid? Safely and effectively. But they are not acting like saviors now are they?

Their reputation is everything to them and their armor has been chinked....

Expand full comment

Thanks for taking the time to answer and provide sources/material. I appreciate it. I love Catherine Austin Fitts! I initially saw a video from her a few years ago and it scared the daylights out of me, and I wrote it off as whacky. FF about a year later, mid-pandemic, and I came across the video of her again, and I was like holy sh*t, she wasn't wrong...! (It was the interview of just her, and she was talking about "Mr. Global.")

Anyway- I'll catch myself up on all this info you provided over the weekend.

Thanks again, and thanks for all your work.

Expand full comment
Feb 3, 2023·edited Feb 3, 2023Liked by Katherine Watt

See this chart, which was made for the UK but the US is doing the same through the DOD:




Expand full comment

Great posts!

Expand full comment

Yes, and his name is Satan.

Whether you believe in God or not is irrelevant, because your enemies do. They show you their allegiance daily. They view God’s creation, humanity, as a cancer upon the Earth. Transhumanism is nothing other than an attempt to defeat the final enemy, Death.


Expand full comment

Well, I certainly believe in God. I'm from the deep south. Hallelujah!


I was more asking about a certain country or "leader" in human form. But, I agree with your statement, ultimately.

Expand full comment

Bless you, Jennifer! I was SO relieved when my son started college last fall and his one and only choice was a small, southern all-boys college.... (and thank GOODNESS they had no vaaaax mandate!)

Expand full comment

I'm in AL, and I was actually attending UAB for undergrad when all of this vaccine mandate crap started. In case you're not familiar with universities Alabama, UAB is a big research hospital; the largest employer in our state, and they take LOTS of $ from NIH etc for medical research. Fortunately for us- our legislators (after LOTS OF WORK) passed SB267 preventing ANY edu institutions- K-12 and colleges- public or private- from requiring any vaccine that wasn't already on the rec'd schedule or mandatory prior to Jan 2021. They also reinforced that exemptions (we have religious and medical exemptions in AL) are to continue to be allowed and existing exemptions were to be honored. HCWs still got shafted, though. Our AL AG was also pretty enthusiastic about reminding people about the legislation, too. Alabama isn't perfect, but I've never been so grateful to live here as I was then. Also grateful to know my local representatives. 🙏

Expand full comment

I’m in TX. I betcha that if AL was TX they would have had the border crisis fixed by now!

Expand full comment

I don't know... TX gets some things right that AL doesn't! You all have a rep out there that I REALLY like... he is an older white gentleman. He has raised important questions in TX hearings about the hospital policies and the disciplining of Physicians who spoke out- Dr. Bowden specifically. I get email updates from his "team," but I can't remember his name at this moment... Maybe it's Bob? But he's been outspoken and assertive in the videos I've seen of him. I hope to shake the hands of some of these brave people from all over the world one day. Dr. Chetty from Africa, Dr. Marik and Dr. Kory, Dr. McCullough. Mike Yeadon. Senator Johnson. Dr. Jackie Stone in Africa. Probably a couple hundred people than span across so many disciplines; legal, medical, academia, truckers, journos. One day!

Expand full comment

Oh, goodness that’s so fortunate Jennifer!! I actually recall watching a press conference quite a while ago with your Governor Ivey, who was attacked by a journalist for not insisting on mandates. And very good to know your local government - well done. I am still waiting for other states to become as vocal as FL re safety or lack thereof.… I wonder if they ever will? 🙏🏻

Expand full comment

Florida is definitely the state to live up to, in that regard! Dr. Joseph Ladapo is a brave man, and I am grateful for DeSantis, too. I hope they're both as honest and courageous as they seem. We call Gov. Ivey "Meemaw" around here. 😆 I don't trust her, and I resent her remark in an interview encouraging people to blame the unvaccinated. But, maybe she was as confused and mislead as everyone was then. Quite frankly I think most successful politicians are psychopaths...

Expand full comment

Well ultimately these people do believe they are doing their dark father’s work, they understand their role in the hierarchy. Many a mason has revealed that they are just vessels for the lightbringer. And Judas himself was possessed by the Devil in order to carry out his betrayal of Christ. He is our enemy in more ways than most believers realize.

The servants of darkness use many mantles and many organizations to do their bidding. Freemasonry is perhaps the most visible of these groups, but there are many hidden orders and occult societies that have served this purpose throughout history.

But unfortunately the country that has most often done their bidding has been America. This Covid psyop and depop campaign is a perfect example of such.

Expand full comment

Ultimately, God is at the top, and this entire beast-run, global, commercial, worldly, sea jurisdiction system is designed to make sure you have no access to knowing who you are. They’ll stop at nothing to keep you separated from your Creator so that you stay ignorant to the truth and never have your rights back, nor have access to the laws of the Land (remember the “Supreme Law of the Land?). To make that happen, then you’ve got to be one of The People. You’ve got to be a man or a woman, a creation of God. Anything else is a man-made title...each of which was made “legal”/codified to control you, and all the rest of the; persons, residents, citizens, individuals, humans, employees, employers, trustees, account-holders, contractors, drivers, landlords, renters, parents, minors, adults, taxpayers, business owners, students, affiliates, males, females, soldiers, officers, leaders, licensees, consumers, healthcare providers, insureds, account-holders, affiliates, subordinates, lessees, lessors, defendants, plaintiffs, card holders, pundits, FIRST MIDDLE LAST names, FIRST M LAST names, FIRTS LAST names, Mr’s, Mrs’s, Miss’s, Ms’s, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Green Party members, he/she’s, and alllll the other fictions imaginable.

Creations of God are man and woman. We can’t be legislated because we are living, and we are “We the People” when we are in our lawful capacity as declared State Citizens, which is distinctly different than “U.S. citizen”, (British Territorial) or “citizen of the United States” (municipal 14th Amendment tax-slave). State Citizens cannot be dual citizens...for example, no State License...just an interest in their State of the Union, and the lawful restoration of America. You need Status, Standing and Jurisdiction. We are working on it.

American Common Law 101 happens each Thursday at 9am PST. Here’s the playback from this week:


Expand full comment

Of course, you are correct in the sense of truth. In the fake world of politics and attempted control of humanity, we have a mortal and evil dominance by cult figures who operate in the WEF and the UN and actually are after the souls of God’s people because they lack the good that comes from God. I will check your link to American Common Law 101. Thanks!

Expand full comment

The people who own Barry O are at the top...two largest Christian nations are enticed to war with each other. Now, WHO would do that?

Expand full comment

Basically it is the international bankers, aka the Babylonian Gang Banksters. See 100 Years of Enslavement on the Corbett Report, to get a handle on who these bankers are. Also see the work of Dean Henderson. Find his books on Amazon and his many interviews on the Richie Allen Show on www.richieallen.podomatic.com. Get ready, the rabbit hole is deep, and ultimately, it is a spiritual war, Truth and Goodness v. Deceit and Malevolence. God Bless You in your redpill journey.

Expand full comment

Well, the DOD/HHS/FDA and the judicial system (not mention the media and education cartel) have knowingly given aid and comfort to the enemy, which is the constitutional definition of treason.

High treason, in fact.

If there’s a lawyer in existence with the chutzpah to do the right thing, they would have filed formal charges against these criminals already.

Expand full comment

Where is the "law" against "the enemy" giving "aid and comfort" to themselves?

Expand full comment

Steve Kirsch is a clown. He actually banned me and deleted my comments linking to videos with you and Sasha, several times.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Unless he claimed a false affiliation, he IS a member of the press, simply by virtue of writing Covid news on substack (or contributing articles to any other publication). There is nothing magical about being a journalist.

Expand full comment

The government put me In jail after I ran for mayor against Gavin in 2007, and they shut down my business.

Now I am Destitute and the prostitute government murders with impunity and even the legal support of lawfare.

Harmacide scamdemic is the new Holocaust

Expand full comment

I'm sorry that happened. It's becoming almost a norm. Is there a way people can help you?

Expand full comment

I just got fired .

I was barely making poverty wage.

Thank you.

Expand full comment


So Mr Barnes, a celebrity lawyer essentially, has sat on this info for months and hasn’t tried to litigate any of it? He won’t even mention it or talk about? And he has plenty of media appearances where he could, so it’s certainly not for lack of opportunity.

This genocide must be stopped and frankly if Mr Barnes is unwilling or incapable of doing so, he needs to get out of the way. Even his empty promises cited above only refer to financial penalties, good luck getting someone to swing for killing your child or parents or loved ones. He’s not even pretending like that’s on the table.

The USG and their private corpo skinsuits have murdered millions of people. Money ain’t gonna cut it.

Expand full comment

I find Steve Kirsch's approach fairly enlightening, and he's an on-the-ground activist. I admire activists who use intelligence to move BIG agendas which both he and you do, Katherine.

You, and he produce an overwhelming amount of text, and good information which in, and of itself can overwhelm people, especially ones not used to absorbing that much info, let alone then trying to figure out how to use it to get involved in moving an agenda. I'm used to using complex info., and histories to influence major power players, and yet, I still find both your, and Steve's substacks a bit overwhelming.

However, you both provide ways for your readers to take what you provide, and without too much effort get involved in driving positive change in these surreal times.

Thank you, BOTH!!!!

Expand full comment

Steve's beating a dead horse. He keeps trying to get someone to bet him a million dollars for this or a million dollars for that...it's gotten annoying. He's preaching to the choir, everyone who reads his stack knows the jabs kill but he keeps on asking for "data" from people he knows won't respond, so why keep it up? And Katherine and Sasha (and others) have proven any "data" is useless, at this point. On the FAA deal, if he'd actually filed a complaint with the FAA, instead of emailing the head of FAA abd their media department, they'd be obligated to investigate but he won't do that. Besides not investigating pilots health conditions (ie, Bob Snow, et.al), the FAA is violating their own regulations about pilots receiving medication that haven't been approved for at least a year. Those 2 things, are ways to get them cornered or at least make Congress get involved.

Expand full comment
Feb 5, 2023·edited Feb 5, 2023

I think his efforts are far broader, and also more directly targeted at specific people with authority, and considerable responsibility to do the right thing about the eugenics bioweapon than you so summarily categorize, and dismiss them.

He's gone after many at the CDC, the FAA, the FDA, and elsewhere, in addition to being incredibly persistent in demanding transparency of data of varying kinds, pre-and-post release of the bioweapon. It's a bit naive to assert that data has been proven useless everywhere, and for evermore as you seem to imply based upon what Katherine has demonstrated.

Taking just the FAA as one example, given his execution of a very sophisticated, multi-pronged confrontation with it involving pilots, and other airline employees, US Federal Air Surgeon Susan Northrup, petitions, paying people to collect petition signatures at airports, and asking passengers to disseminate information to pilots, and a host of other tactics, I think it's incredibly naive to believe if he just filed a complaint he'd be done with it. Tell me with whom he files the complaint you suggest, what's in the complaint, what's his standing to file it, who's he representing in the complaint, what authority the "complaint department" or official to which or whom you're referring has to address the complaint, and why you believe he hasn't thought of it, or why it will be so much more effective than an absolute barrage he's launched against the FAA to date. I'm curious to understand your thinking.

If you think it's easy to get your own House or Senate members involved in substantive issues, let alone Congress, or even getting your representatives to take up the issue to get their colleagues on the floor involved, I speculate you've not dealt with them on any complex issues.

As one who dealt for over 3 decades with large city, sate, and federal bureaucracies on contentious issues, mostly of housing, and education, involving civil rights litigation dating to August, 1966 which was just settled a few years ago, I can assure you driving change with powerful interests is REALLY, REALLY difficult. When it involves global crimes against humanity the degree of difficulty is exponentially greater by many orders of magnitude.

I'm really grateful Steve is such a pitbull power player of tremendous savvy, financial, communications, strategic planning, and execution capabilities among many others. It's quite obvious why he is such a successful entrepreneur. He's quite brilliant.

Expand full comment

If there was no requirement to run clinical trials, then why did they? And why did they share results with the FDA? Why did FDA pretend to rely on them? Why did they use them to tell the people about them and use their claimed results to deceive the people they were safe and effective? I do not see how claiming their contract did not require any trials when they elected to use clinical trials to sell it to the population the vaccines were safe and effective, use it to claim they are 95% effective, and used real people to experiment on when they were not required to conduct any trials. By claiming they were not required to conduct clinical trials by their contract, and for the government to defend them on this lame excuse, only means the government, i.e., DoD, FDA, and CDC, WHO, were all conspiring together to defraud the people around the world. So, it isn't Pfizer defrauded the government, it is Pfizer, the government agencies, CDA, WHO, all conspired to together to defraud the people using deceptive clinical trials that were never required by the government, in order to deceive the people their bio-chemical weapon labeled as a vaccine was safe and effective. The biggest crime in world history that dwarfs the Holocaust.

Expand full comment

A grand "conspiracy", you might say.

Expand full comment

Yep... but to answer your first question, there is no way the public (even as ignorant and gullible as it is) would accept a hasty and unknown injection without something that at least resembled a human clinical study.

Expand full comment

Pretty good summary. 👍 Just take out the question marks and you're on target.

Expand full comment

Katherine, If I may in regards to you being seemingly bewildered by the lack of focus on DoD, BARDA etc. during Brooke’s interview. Although I am not aware if they are aware of you or Sasha’s work but even if they are I think it’s difficult to speak about it because of the nuisance needed. I have read and reread many of your articles because for me, it helps me conceptualize what you are saying and then crystallize in my mind. A causal reader who would read it once and move on is going to have great difficulty wrapping their head around the implications of what you are saying. I am not insulting the casual reader, not at all but not everyone has the lexicon to understand legal documents and especially the overwrought with doublespeak, bureaucratic legal speak the government employs. Don’t get me wrong , I love what you are doing, it really cuts to the heart of this matter and fills a black hole size lack of historical context that is missing is most everyone’s understanding of what is really going on. I think your reach is limited due to the way in which the subject matter is communicated. Of course this is just my personal opinion so I understand I could be wrong compared to others, I freely concede that possibility. If a layman approach to the narrative you are telling is applied I believe you’re story has the potential to set aflame the carefully crafted Wicker Man that has been carefully constructed in the public’s mind. I’ve shared your stuff on Twitter thinking my followers would be blown away but I don’t think the implications for what you are saying is really understood. Even the most ardent COVID skeptic can barely fathom what you are saying. Again I mean no disrespect to your writing, its fantastic and thoroughly cited and researched which I love. I’m just trying to pull back and look at this from a Meta perspective and trying to find ways to increase understanding. Just my two cents, much respect to you 🙏.

Expand full comment

Uhmmm, Katherine is a well experienced constitutional law researcher, and it seems to me that all posts are well explained in plain simple language.

As far as the actual court documents, to read them demands one's full attention. When I don't understand a term, I look up the definition. I read the notes referring to case precedents, etc. it's work, not pablum.

So, here's a meme example from the Rittenhouse trial: Witness: "He blew my bicep away"

Lawyer: "So what you are saying is that when you tried to kill him, he disarmed you? "

That's not so hard to understand. It's not tv courthouse. Legal language strives for precision. It also often strives for obscuration. All a double edged sword...why do we make "laws", anyway?

Expand full comment

You make an important point. You have obviously spent considerable time reading Katherine's material. And you write well.

Might you be able to synthesize Katherine's salient points down to more concise, easily-digested-by-the-masses form yourself?

It is the kind of thing we badly need more of in this battle. (And I imagine leaders like Katherine would welcome our help!)

We are up against malevolent forces with unlimited resources who spew out endless sound-bites and catch-phrases via their MSM.

They don't release 2-hour podcasts and lengthy, technical articles because they know the attention span of the people they are trying to influence (brainwash) is about 8 seconds.

Perhaps it's a manner we could ALL contribute more to 'the cause'??

Just a thought.

(I have something coming soon that should help. Anyone who'd like to be informed when it's ready can email me at - jorjorwell@protonmail.com)

Expand full comment
Feb 3, 2023·edited Feb 3, 2023

I'm not a lawyer. I figured it out and grasped the concepts just fine. Have them start with Sashas presentations first before going here.

Expand full comment

I think Katherine and Sasha have done a phenomenal job breaking all this down into layman's terms. I'm not "formally" educated and I've been able to grasp just about everything they've written. If someone isn't understanding what's being written here, it's solely because they don't want to understand. That's a widespread problem and is worse due to the massive propaganda that's been thrown at people, not just the last few years but for decades (ie, Vaccine are good!). Don't blame the messenger because the horse won't drink. 😉

Expand full comment

I am considering a pro se action in a local district Court. We have local victims. I want to achieve an emergency cease and desist injunction.

Please . Your thoughts.

Expand full comment

I don't understand the best approach to get out of the mess we are in, but I was very disappointed to learn that the EUA products do not end with EUA and the FDA will continue to be able to make EUA products as if this is the new normal way that drugs are to be approved in the future. According to Jeffrey Jackson of the Highwire, the infrastructure is in place to make a ton of new MRNA products and that they will use the Pfizer "trial" that the population is in to validate its safety and efficacy. If this is the plan to push ahead using this "trial" and its success (Peter Marks says they have gotten no safety signals in the billions of doses given out), then its full steam ahead. Yuck!!

Expand full comment

yup, it's a gang rape alright, no dissenters

Expand full comment

I have heard it said that forcing Pfizer to publically admit it's relationship to the DOD is important for popular opinion. Also it's hard to imagine what chess moves might be required to arrive at a particular result regarding the entities involved. Just my thoughts.

Expand full comment

Katherine.....I have an awesome opportunity. I will have the chance to submit questions for a panel of 4 people. A rep from NIH, CDC, FDA, HHS. If you had the opportunity to ask one question what would it be? I am thinking it will have something to do with the relationship between DoD and HHS?? A good lawyer never asks a question they do not already know the answer. So I will need the appropriate response to the question and the proof to back it up. This way when they lie there is a valid rebuttal to their lie. If you would like to contact me my email is: karen.bracken@reagan.com. I cannot go in to detail on this post but will privately if you contact me but this is a real opportunity and I want to make sure whatever questions I pose will get asked. Once I submit this comment I will delete it from your page because I am hoping it will go to your email. I have a Substack too and I get an email for every comment and I read every one of them.

Expand full comment

I just wanted to thank you for the time and effort it took to put this info together.

Expand full comment

Hi Katherine I just subscribed. I’ve been researching since 911 and while I had most of the individual pieces, your video about the #KillBox still has my head vibrating. It blew up my Twitter and I intend to blast it far and wide as I haven’t run across anything quite so concise and devastating to break through the “fog of psywar” even people who are mostly awake are experiencing. I would be honored to speak with you at a convenient time if that is possible. I have a bunch of pissed off duty and retired firefighters here in Florida that are planning to use our voices. I can’t think of anyone who could advise us. I’m on Twitter @firemanjohn628 or I’d be happy to give you my phone number if you could call. Thanks again, I will be blasting your video and your Substack in the meantime and look forward to speaking to you. God Bless


Expand full comment

My email is kgwatt@protonmail.com if you want to contact me directly.

I don’t have the bandwidth to organize volunteer campaigns directly, apart from the generalized organizing I do by collecting and offering people material they can use to wake more people up, including public officials.

That’s my general advice — in whatever way each of us can, keep pushing the information and the understanding more widely, so that the volume and clarity of public pressure coming back on public officials who are not corrupt, keeps increasing and they start getting in the game for real.

Expand full comment

That sounds fine Katherine. Just more of an advice nature. The FD has some pretty good contacts with De Santis and State Government. In my mind your video would be a centerpiece to bottom line exactly where we are at as a country and species. I’ll shoot you a short email when I’ve got the group mobilized. Thank you again for that 16 minutes. Haven’t seen anything that concise and powerful.

Expand full comment

There's no trust, no faith, no honesty in men;

all perjured, all forsworn, all naught, all dissemblers.

~ William Shakespeare ~


Dissemble: Feign, Pretend, Mask.

• Hide under a false appearance.

• Make believe with the intent to deceive.


The Masters of Confusion

(Who are they?)

In the earliest history of America there was one group of people that were feared with reason--a society, you might say, whose often “insidious” craft had claimed a multitude of victims, ever since the middle ages in Europe.

One group of people were hated and feared from Massachusetts Bay to Virginia. The Magistrate would not burn them at the stake although surely a great many of the colonists would have surely recommended such a solution. Our forefathers were baffled by them. In the first place where did they come from? Of all who sailed from England to Plymouth in 1620, not one of them was aboard.

"Vermin," that's what the Colonist called them. “Parasites” who fed on human misery, spreading sorrow and confusion wherever they went ........ "Destructive," they were called.

And still they were permitted co-existence with the colonists, for a while, anyway. Of course there were colonial laws prohibiting the practice of their infamous craft. Somehow a way was always found around all those laws.

In 1641, Massachusetts Bay colony took a novel approach to the problem. The governors attempted to starve the "devils" out of existence through economic exclusion. They were denied wages, and thereby it was hoped that they would perish.

Four years later, Virginia followed the example of Massachusetts Bay and for a while it seemed that the dilemma had been resolved. It had not, somehow the "parasites" managed to survive, and the mere nearness of them made the colonists skin crawl.

In 1658, in Virginia, the final solution; banishment; exile. The "treacherous ones" were cast out of the colony. At last, after decades of enduring the "psychological gloom", the sun came out and the birds sang, and all was right with the world. And the elation continued for a generation.

I'm not sure why the Virginians eventually allowed the outcasts to return, but they did. In 1680 after twenty-two years, the despised ones were readmitted to the colony on the condition that they be subjected to the strictest surveillance ....… How soon we forget!!

For indeed over the next half century or so, the imposed restrictions were slowly, quietly swept away. And those whose treachery had been feared since the middle ages ultimately took their place in society.

You see, the "vermin” that once infested colonial America, the ”parasites” who prayed on the misfortunes of their neighbours until finally they were officially banished from Virginia, those dreaded, despised, outcasts, “masters of confusion” were LAWYERS.

Expand full comment

Lawyers and the Legal Trade

(as distinguished from the LAW)

28 “Quotes” from the man who trained them.

A prominent Law Professor who taught lawyers for over 40 years.

“The whole legal trade is made up of lawyers, by lawyers and for lawyers for private gain in order to perpetuate their Hocus Pocus regarding the phoniness of the whole legal process.”

“I outlined my ideas about the book, and about the law, to a lawyer who is not only able but also extraordinarily frank and perceptive about his profession. “Sure,” he said, “but why give the show away?”

“Of all the specialized skills abroad in the world today, the average man knows least about the one that affects him most – about the thing that lawyers call The Law.”

“It is the lawyers who run our civilization for us – our governments, our business, our private lives. Most legislators are lawyers; they make our laws. Most presidents, governors, commissioners, along with their advisers and brain-trusters are lawyers; they administer our laws. All the judges are lawyers; they interpret and enforce our laws. There is no separation of powers where the lawyers are concerned. There is only a concentration of all government power – in the lawyers. As the schoolboy put it, ours is “a government of lawyers, not of men. We all live in it, but the lawyers run it.”

“And in our private lives, we cannot buy a home or rent an apartment, we cannot get married or try to get divorced, we cannot die and leave our property to our children without calling on the lawyers to guide us. To guide us, incidentally, through a maze of confusing gestures and formalities that lawyers have created.”

“There are several reasons for this mass submission, One is the average man’s fear of the unknown – and of policemen. The law combines the threat of both. A non-lawyer confronted by The Law is like a child faced by a pitch-darkroom. Merciless judges lurk there, ready to jump out at him.”

“Yet lawyers can and often do talk about their product without telling anything about it at all. And that fact involves one of the chief reasons for the non-lawyer’s persistent ignorance about the Law. Briefly, The Law is carried on in a foreign language.”

“Much of the language of the law is built out of perfectly respectable English words which have been given a queer and different and exclusively legal meaning. It is, in short, a language that nobody but a lawyer understands. Or could understand.”

“For the lawyers’ trade is a trade built entirely on words. And so long as the lawyers carefully keep to themselves the key to what those words mean, the only way the average man can find out what is going on is to become a lawyer, or at least to study law, himself. All of which makes it very nice – and very secure – for the lawyers”.

“And it is only because the average man cannot play their game, and so cannot see for himself how intrinsically empty-of-meaning their playthings are, that the lawyers continue to get away with it.”

“The legal trade, in short, is nothing but a high-class racket. It is a racket far more lucrative and more powerful and hence more dangerous than any of those minor and much-publicized rackets.”

“Furthermore, the lawyers – or at least 99/100 per cent of them – are not even aware that they are indulging in a racket, and would be shocked at the very mention of the idea. Once bitten by the legal bug, they lose all sense of perspective about what they are doing and how they are doing it. Like the medicine men of tribal times and the priests of the Middle Ages they actually believe in their own nonsense. This fact, of course, makes their racket all the more insidious. Consecrated fanatics are always more dangerous than conscious villains. And lawyers are fanatics indeed about the sacredness of the word-magic they call The Law.”

“Yet the saddest and most insidious fact about the legal racket is that the general public doesn’t realize it’s a racket either. Scared, befuddled, impressed and ignorant, they take what is fed them, or rather what is sold them. Only once an age do the non-lawyers get, not wise, but disgusted, and rebel. In every revolution the lawyers lead the way to the guillotine or the firing squad.”

“It should not, however, require a revolution to rid society of lawyer-control. Nor is riddance by revolution ever likely to be a permanent solution. The American colonists had scarcely freed themselves from the nuisances of The Law by practically ostracizing the pre-Revolutionary lawyers out of their communities – a fact which is little appreciated – when a new and home-made crop of lawyers sprang up to take over the affairs of the baby nation.”

“If people could be made to realize how much of the vaunted majesty of The Law is a hoax and how many of the mighty processes of The Law are merely logical legerdemain, they would not long let the lawyers lead them around by the nose. And people have recently begun, bit by bit, to catch on. The great illusion of The Law has been leaking a little at the edges”.

“And perhaps if the ordinary man could see in black and white how silly and irrelevant and unnecessary it all is, he might be persuaded, in a peaceful way, to take the control of his civilization out of the hands of those modern purveyors of streamlined voodoo and chromium-plated theology, the lawyers.”

“For practically every lawyer thinks and talks of The Law as a sort of omnipotent, omniscient presence hovering around like God over the affairs of men. Yet every lawyer purports to be able to understand and interpret a large part of that presence for the benefit of those who are not lawyers – at a price.”

“The mass of practicing attorneys and little judges are fooling themselves and the public when they claim that The Law as they know and use it is a logical science instead of a pseudo-scientific fraud”. “No single fact is so essential to the life and lustiness of the legal racket as the sober pretense on the part of practically all its practitioners – from Supreme Court judges down to police court lawyers – that The Law is, in the main, an exact science. No pretense was ever more absurd.”

“For the lawyers know it would be woe unto the lawyers if the non-lawyers ever got wise to the fact that their lives were run, not by The Law, not by any rigid and impersonal and automatically-applied code of rules, but instead by a comparatively small group of men, smart, smooth, and smug – the lawyers.”

“The sober truth is that the myriad principles of which The Law is fashioned resemble nothing so much as old saws, dressed up in legal language and paraded as gospel.”

“Just as the devil can always cite Scripture to his purpose, so can any lawyer on either side of any case always cite the law to his.”

“Legal language, wherever it happens to be used, is a hodgepodge of outlandish words and phrases because those words and phrases are what the principles of The Law are made of.”

“Yet why – if you think it over for a minute – should people not be privileged to understand completely and precisely any written laws that directly concern them, any business documents they have to sign, any code of rules and restrictions which applies to them and under which they perpetually live?

“Why then should The Law use a language – language being, remember, no more than a means of communicating ideas – which those ordinary human beings cannot hope to understand?”

“But how can any lawyer afford to admit that fact, even to himself, when his position in the community, his prestige among his fellow craftsmen, and his own sense of self-respect all hang on the assumption that he does know what he is talking about?”

“Consequently, the hope of The Law – that is, the hope of the lawyers that their game will go on indefinitely, undiminished and undisputed – lies with the law schools.”

“Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the law.”

If you changed your Law-maker, that would change your Law, and you would own your Property.

Who do you think would get the pink slip?

Now you know the rest of the story !

Expand full comment

"..voodoo and chromium plated theology" !!!! Pardon my french here, but the only response to that is "Fucking A!!"

All of this could be just as easily said of the "medical" profession, to whom lawyers are the protectors of impunities.

One of the premises of law is the ideology that nature has "laws". Not. Law is a man made concept.

Expand full comment

this also fully explains why they would not allow Bobby Seale to act as his own attorney.

Expand full comment

Your "founding fathers" were all British Barristers, aka lawyers.

Expand full comment

Not "my" founding fathers. It's just a term invented to further deceive the people. Remember, it was only a small select group of men who declared their own independence from King George. Everyone was his subjects. When they went to war against the King, many of the King's subjects joined in to fight against the King. That war ended in 1783. At that moment in time did this current government exist? No. At that moment in time every man was free and independent to govern themselves individually as free sovereign men. The so-called Founders decided to create for THEMSELVES a new form of government. Do you think one small group men had any authority to create for themselves a new government and bind all free men to it, including all future generations after that? Of course not.

So, after you were born, at what point did you personally go down and volunteer to sign up to become bound to this government and its authority? They have no authority to force you against your will to be bound by their government. That would be involuntary servitude which they themselves abolished under their 13th amendment.

The ONLY way you can be bound to be governed by this government is only by your CONSENT. This is even established in their very first organic law of the United States called the Declaration of Independence. It requires the CONSENT of the governed. Consent Makes the Law. Where there is no consent to a man's made law, there can be no law applied to you under their man-made laws. You must consent to it.

How does one consent? Well, simply by participating in their government by registering to vote in their government is consent. By using its property and claiming it as your property is another way of consenting. People do that every single day in every single court across the Nation. They do not know they are consenting by making such claims before the court, but ignorance of their laws is no excuse.

Of course you have no choice but to use their property in order to live and survive, using it is okay as long as you never try to claim it as yours. This is why as the occupying Army over this Nation, they are required to issue you a receipt so may receive indemnity for everything. That receipt is the certified COPY of their official Certificate of Live Birth they created to create a "person" the State owns, for your USE to operate with in their commercial system created under their government.

Everyone has a choice. You can choose to return to having your Creator as your King/President/Governor/Government OR you can choose to be ruled by men and ignore your Creator's warning of what they will do by choosing them to rule over you. All of his warnings are listed in Samuel 1 in the Bible, which even this government has declared to be the Word of God. You cannot serve two masters. You either serve God to rule over you or you serve a group of men to rule over you. That choice is entirely up you. Consent Makes the Law!

Who is your Maker?

Expand full comment

Thank you for your extended version of most of the reasons why I have never registered to vote as a citizen of the US, not ever voted in any municipal or other election. I'll be able to just toss this at anyone as objects, and let them cope with it.

Expand full comment

Hello Katherine, I’ve been following your work for only a couple of weeks and discovered you through Sasha’s reference both written and videos. You two are profoundly insightful. I am catching up. This is a great post with the links to the litigation docs in the Jackson case and a summary and analysis by you. Thank you. I will be reviewing the info.

I’ve also been following Karen Kingston and have had several extended conversations with her.

My question to you is Karen asserts the DOD contract provides it is subject to FDA oversight and approval and as such they haven’t been side stepped. So which is it? What’s your view?

This apparent contradictory message from her seems to be almost attacking you and Sasha. It is adding mud to the water. I’ve been very busy lately with personal issues and haven’t been able to get to the bottom of this question yet. The dust is clearing and I’ll be able to dive back into this again shortly.

I’m very curious about tge apparent contradictions being asserted.

Any thoughts?

Thank you.

Expand full comment

I’ve addressed it a few times.

Key point from this post:


“The Base Agreement contract provided, at Section 21.06, for DOD military personnel to monitor and control every document, phone call, email, meeting and third-party audit between Pfizer (the “project agreement holder” or PAH) and FDA regulators.

DOD put this into the OTA bioweapons procurement contracts to ensure from the very start that Operation Warp Speed could only ever conclude with FDA authorizations and approvals, and that the FDA would never, under any circumstances, revoke the authorizations and approvals, because revocation of the authorization is the only condition under which US Government payment on the contracts can be suspended...”

Expand full comment

Putting the requirement of complete monitoring of all developments and communications with PAH and FDA etc doesn’t guarantee FDA approval.

I don’t see that logical step. I recall Pfizer had included a representation in their contract that specifically stated they made no guarantee of FDA approval and that they were not restricted or limited in their performance of the contract based on FDA approval. I have seen a racketeering operation in play here since the inception with government incentivized fraud. Perhaps the FDA “approval” which is still suspect evidences their criminal actions. I’ll check your link. Thanks for the response.

I posted a link to your 16 minute video on my channel. I love your work, attitude and thinking. I applaud your direct and what I call “brutal” calls for justice. I share the sentiments! Bravo! Here’s the link. https://www.bitchute.com/video/yfkmzkxOm3Nn/

Thank you for all you do!👍

Expand full comment

It's the emergency powers. They pulled it outside the constitutional frame work when Azar signed away involuntary consent in March 2020. By the way, you know who I am but please don't use my real name here.

Expand full comment

Same response.

Expand full comment

Karen's understanding is Dejure vs. Defacto circumstances as Katherine has explained here.

Expand full comment
Feb 4, 2023·edited Feb 4, 2023

That’s not my question. I’m talking about the contract. If it’s subject to FDA approval oversight guidelines etc then it’s really not outside the framework. However that doesn’t explain the OTA and the prototype waiving quality control and safety tests. I’m questioning Karens accuracy. I’m also questioning which contract she’s citing. That’s why I posted the question here.

Expand full comment
Feb 4, 2023·edited Feb 4, 2023

It's relevant because in ordinary circumstances the FDA would be responsible as Karen points out (Dejure) but the govt specifically the DOJ formally supported the Motion to Dismiss Brooks qui Tam case in October 2022 (Defacto) which Katherine points out over and over again.

Expand full comment